Fluoride In The Water

[saveourwater]

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.

 

Nice to see you are still sprinkling your arguments with cheap, petty insults Chinahand.

 

All I can say in response to your NZ Ministry of Health is read this LINK (links to John Colquhoun former NZ leading fluoride promoter and how he changed his mind on the subject).

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Is this really a distortion by the Manx press? Who has the agenda - a Ramsey Commissioner - explain please?

 

So what does your article really link to, FDA approval of water fluoridation? No, it does not. It links to a ridiculous FDA 'approval claim' for BOTTLED WATER! LINK

 

Despite never having approved fluoride as a medicinal additive to water, the FDA now permits bottled water manufacturers to make an anti-caries health claim for bottled water that contains fluoride.

 

 

And despite the FDA specifically stating that this 'approval' for bottled water could not be applied to water marketed at infants that is what has been happening, so was this really a good idea by the FDA, well the Washington based Environemntal Working Group don't think so EWG LINK

 

the Food and Drug Administration specifically excluded claims for products like Nursery Water, stating “the health claim is not intended for use on bottled water products specifically marketed for use by infants.”

[saveourwater]

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.

 

 

Our website LINK portrays 5 images of dental fluorosis (with one image being shown twice).

 

The website needs to be taken in context with descriptions of dental fluorosis coming from the DHSS and Dr Emerson. That is the reason we put the images up there along with the comments so that people could see what dental fluorosis looks like and compare with the statements.

 

The reason we dont show normal or questionable fluorosis? Well normal teeth are just that - normal, and questionable fluorosis is also just that - questionable. What we are showing are levels of actual fluorosis, very mild to severe all of which are recorded in the fluoridated parts of Ireland.

 

Taking the 5 images at the bottom of the page (to assist you in identifying them) they are as follows (from top to bottom in order)

 

1st image – 15 year old girl with mild/moderate fluorosis.

2nd image – Dean Index Very Mild Fluorosis.

3rd image – Dean Index Mild Fluorosis.

4th image – Dean Index Moderate Fluorosis.

5th image – Dean Index Severe Fluorosis.

 

You were correct in your choice to show the fluorosis percentages of 15 year old children in Ireland Chinahand, after all that is when they will have their ‘permanent’ teeth and will possibly be dating and thinking about job prospects / further education so a very good time to look at their teeth.

 

What the percentages show is that 7% of these children will have fluorosis that is so bad that it will require cosmetic dentistry. We highlighted this in our recent Courier advert. Who wants to partake in that lottery for their children – 7 out of every 100 children developing those levels of fluorosis?

 

At least we have had the decency to show the Manx public what fluorosis looks like. They can now read the DHSS descriptions of the condition, look at the images and decide if they want to enter their children into that lottery.

[Chinahand]

What the percentages show is that 7% of these children will have fluorosis that is so bad that it will require cosmetic dentistry. We highlighted this in our recent Courier advert. Who wants to partake in that lottery for their children – 7 out of every 100 children developing those levels of fluorosis?

 

As ever you are incapable of looking at the broad picture - why, because you are a lobbiest obsessed with your position no matter what. It is highly likely you do not care one jot about what science says - you simply don't want fluoridation for emotional reasons: in your gut you feel its wrong and you ain't going to let anything like evidence convince you otherwise.

 

But lets look at the bigger picture - I'll only use the percentages for the Republic of Ireland - if I'd added in the ones for Northern Ireland it would make things better for my argument, but I don't know sample sizes so its incorrect to combined percentages.

 

I will also use dataset which makes my argument most difficult - 15 year olds

 

In the ROI fluorinated areas 15 year olds have on average 2.1 teeth that either need drilling, filling, or removing, or have been drilled, filled or removed. In non-fluorinated areas it is 3.2.

 

So for every hundred 15 years in a fluorinated area on average 210 times little Sean or Sinead will have been put into the chair gased, injected, or if little Sinead is very young anesthetized, and then drilled, filled etc.

 

In a non-fluorinated area for 100 people its 320 goes with that whizzing little drill.

 

Now yes it is also apparant that some children may need treatment for fluorosis - cap, scrape or whatever - lets be as tough on me as possible - and lets assume that all fluorosis above questionable needs to recieve treatment - which is a very extreme assumption. Well in that case in the fluorinated areas 17 people will need treatment. In non fluorinated areas 7.

 

So lets summarize: If you bring in fluoridation you will save 110 interventions to drill, fill or remove fillings, and you will add 10 interventions to cap, scrape or whatever fluorosis.

 

The net result 100 fewer interventions for every hundred 15 year olds.

 

Now you obsess about the 10 extra cases of fluorosis which will have to be capped. Please note Americans are obsessed about their whiter than white, perfect toothy smiles - and by far the majority of them drink this terrible smile destroying water. Yes, it is sad that 10 people will have to be treated in that chair, with those drills and things.

 

But 110 times a person will not have had to sit their with the lights, injections, and strange pink mouth wash.

 

Put things into perspective - it seems you are incapable of doing this.

[saveourwater]

As ever you are incapable of looking at the broad picture - why, because you are a lobbiest obsessed with your position no matter what. It is highly likely you do not care one jot about what science says - you simply don't want fluoridation for emotional reasons: in your gut you feel its wrong and you ain't going to let anything like evidence convince you otherwise.

 

But lets look at the bigger picture - I'll only use the percentages for the Republic of Ireland - if I'd added in the ones for Northern Ireland it would make things better for my argument, but I don't know sample sizes so its incorrect to combined percentages.

 

I will also use dataset which makes my argument most difficult - 15 year olds

 

In the ROI fluorinated areas 15 year olds have on average 2.1 teeth that either need drilling, filling, or removing, or have been drilled, filled or removed. In non-fluorinated areas it is 3.2.

 

So for every hundred 15 years in a fluorinated area on average 210 times little Sean or Sinead will have been put into the chair gased, injected, or if little Sinead is very young anesthetized, and then drilled, filled etc.

 

In a non-fluorinated area for 100 people its 320 goes with that whizzing little drill.

 

Now yes it is also apparant that some children may need treatment for fluorosis - cap, scrape or whatever - lets be as tough on me as possible - and lets assume that all fluorosis above questionable needs to recieve treatment - which is a very extreme assumption. Well in that case in the fluorinated areas 17 people will need treatment. In non fluorinated areas 7.

 

So lets summarize: If you bring in fluoridation you will save 110 interventions to drill, fill or remove fillings, and you will add 10 interventions to cap, scrape or whatever fluorosis.

 

The net result 100 fewer interventions for every hundred 15 year olds.

 

Now you obsess about the 10 extra cases of fluorosis which will have to be capped. Please note Americans are obsessed about their whiter than white, perfect toothy smiles - and by far the majority of them drink this terrible smile destroying water. Yes, it is sad that 10 people will have to be treated in that chair, with those drills and things.

 

But 110 times a person will not have had to sit their with the lights, injections, and strange pink mouth wash.

 

Put things into perspective - it seems you are incapable of doing this.

 

 

I will reply in more depth to your post later. Fow now though Chinahand I would check your figures from the 'final report' if I were you. I would also include the data on fissure sealants and percentages of untreated decay.

 

Be sure to also factor in costs of treating dental fluorosis (not to be made available on the NHS by the way) against any perceived savings on fillings, if of course you are genuine in your attempt to look at the "bigger picture".

 

Also if you are relating your above argument to 15 year old's how do you justify this statement? : -

 

or if little Sinead is very young anesthetized

[jimbms]

Chinahand I still think your missing the point. Mass forced medication is morally wrong and I suspect it will soon be declaired legally wrong if a test case goes ahead, also as you may gather I am the last person to give a shit about human rights but I am sure some namby pamby bleeding heart liberal will insist forced medication is against human rights. For me I would rather have the choice to take flouride rather than it being enforced. The health service do not force people to give up smoking limit the amount of alcohol people can drink to save their health, in my oppinion these 2 cause far more damage than bad teeth, but yet you argue that a minor should have forced medication without choice and come to that adults also.

[Chinahand]

Also if you are relating your above argument to 15 year old's how do you justify this statement? : -

 

or if little Sinead is very young anesthetized

Huh - you really aren't capable of interpreting scientific data are you. By the age of 15 on average they will have had 2.1 teeth filled - it is not stated when they had this work done - it could have been done years earlier.

[saveourwater]

Huh - you really aren't capable of interpreting scientific data are you. By the age of 15 on average they will have had 2.1 teeth filled - it is not stated when they had this work done - it could have been done years earlier.

 

Huh, what years earlier when they are like really, really young and they have got their primary teeth and need to be gassed - and they will still have these drilled and filled teeth by the time they are 15?

 

Do they even drill and fill at that age under gas or do they just extract?

 

Edited to add: -

 

Oh, and by the way it's not 2.1 teeth that have been 'filled' it's 2.1 mean DMFT - Decayed, Missing or Filled teeth - seeing as we're sticking to a strict interpretation of the science like.

 

You may also want to consider that small point when you re-adjust your post above to include all the other factors I have asked you to that make up the "bigger picture".

[pontiuspilot]

Also if you are relating your above argument to 15 year old's how do you justify this statement? : -

 

or if little Sinead is very young anesthetized

Huh - you really aren't capable of interpreting scientific data are you. By the age of 15 on average they will have had 2.1 teeth filled - it is not stated when they had this work done - it could have been done years earlier.

 

you've talked a lot of sense on this subject me old Chinahand.

if you think that logical argument will work with SOW forget it, as you have alluded he is a one trick pony with his needle stuck. when i have pointed out his scientific short comings to him he gets very nasty indeed. i have the messages to prove it.

[saveourwater]

you've talked a lot of sense on this subject me old Chinahand.

if you think that logical argument will work with SOW forget it, as you have alluded he is a one trick pony with his needle stuck. when i have pointed out his scientific short comings to him he gets very nasty indeed. i have the messages to prove it.

 

Oh dear, did Pontiuspilot not like my messages after he makes unfounded accusations of cowardice? Well go ahead then Pontiuspilot post up the messages and show the world how very nasty indeed I really am.

[Chinahand]

Saveourwater likes cherry picking Republic of Ireland reports on dental health - never gives the conclusion though - they had a thorough review of fluoridation recently

 

The objectives:

 

• Has water fluoridation improved the oral health of the Irish population?

• Is there scientific evidence that water fluoridation at a level of l part per million (mg /l)

endangers human health?

• What recommendations would you make?

 

The conclusions:

 

• Water fluoridation has been very effective in improving the oral health of the Irish

population, especially of children, but also of adults and the elderly.

• The best available and most reliable scientific evidence indicates, that at the maximum

permitted level of fluoride in drinking water at 1 part per million, human health is not

adversely affected.

• Dental fluorosis (a form of discolouration of the tooth enamel) is a well recognised

condition and an indicator of overall fluoride absorption, whether from natural sources,

fluoridated water or the inappropriate use of fluoride toothpaste at a young age.

There is evidence that the prevalence of dental fluorosis is increasing in Ireland.

 

As ever Saveourwater will bang on about fluorosis - he's already claimed my figures are incorrect - I agree there will be nuances, but a rough and ready statement that fluorodation will save 110 procedures to fill teeth per 100 fifteen year olds while causing an additional 10 procedures for fluorosis isn't far wrong. I'm no expert, I read the science and respect the conclusions it comes to - Water fluoridation overall - even when taking account of fluorosis - has been very effective in improving oral health.

 

Saveourwater wants to spin that into how terrible fluoridation is - disengenuous and disgraceful.

[Lost Login]

you've talked a lot of sense on this subject me old Chinahand.

if you think that logical argument will work with SOW forget it, as you have alluded he is a one trick pony with his needle stuck. when i have pointed out his scientific short comings to him he gets very nasty indeed. i have the messages to prove it.

 

As you say there is no point arguing with SOW he has no interest in the evidence or the facts just in getting his way by whatever means. I am amazed that Chinahand has the patience to keep the dialogue going as I have lsot the patience to carry on reading.

 

SOW though has convinced me where I stand on the issue as prior to his intervention my belief followed along the lines of what Ballaugh Biker argues. I also had concers with possible effects on animals rather than humans. I would therefore have been against Water Fluoridation.

 

SOW has now persudaded me that I should now be in favour of it as I am against the deliberate miss use & miss quoting of facts and science that SOW is into and his general scaremongering tactics. As the science shows that it will not be harmful to health to add it to our water I am all for it now just because I am against pressue groups basically lying and scaremongering to get their own way.

[saveourwater]

Saveourwater likes cherry picking Republic of Ireland reports on dental health - never gives the conclusion though - they had a thorough review of fluoridation recently

 

 

As ever Saveourwater will bang on about fluorosis - he's already claimed my figures are incorrect - I agree there will be nuances, but a rough and ready statement that fluorodation will save 110 procedures to fill teeth per 100 fifteen year olds while causing an additional 10 procedures for fluorosis isn't far wrong. I'm no expert, I read the science and respect the conclusions it comes to - Water fluoridation overall - even when taking account of fluorosis - has been very effective in improving oral health.

 

Saveourwater wants to spin that into how terrible fluoridation is - disengenuous and disgraceful.

 

Nice one Chinahand, whilst debating the latest available data from Ireland you quote the conclusion from an entirely different document published a whole year earlier than even the preliminary results of the data we are discussing to back your argument. Once again it is you that is distorting the data as you did before with your distortion of the dental fluorosis percentages.

 

If anyone is acting disgracefully here it is you. You are certainly clever enough to know what you are doing so it must be deliberate. That along with your repeated, petty, insulting name calling makes you even worse.

 

No matter what you say there are no A Grade scientific papers anywhere in the world that can support the effectiveness or safety of water fluoridation. When you factor in the costs of dental fluorosis and all the other variables fluoridation does at least as much harm as good, if not more.

 

Added to that there are all the other arguments. Animal effects. Storage, transport, dosage, safety margin for most vulnerable members of society including very young, very old, those with impaired kidney function the list goes on.

 

And last but not least the ethical argument. Why should a government be able to do what no doctor can do - medicate you against your will?

[Miss Take]

blah

 

Chinahand has proved time and again on this forum to be someone who is adept at picking out facts from fallacy and presenting well reasoned, educated arguments. I would argue that he's probably one of the most respected forum posters on here.

 

You, however, post on one topic only and refuse to even acknowledge that there is any merit in an opposing viewpoint, making you seem over zealous to a very large degree. You present semi-arguments and make flawed interpretations of data and come across as a spoilt child who isn't getting your own way. If anything, you are driving people away from your side of the argument.

 

That is all.

[saveourwater]

blah

 

 

If you read more of the posts than just quoting "blah" maybe you would see that Chinahand has been very clever in his 'game' on this subject.

 

You probably don't want to disturb your respect for him though do you, so you wont do that.

 

Driving people away? Not quite, every time these threads come alive we get more and more names on our petition but that could be a coincidence.

 

Anyway the rigged government poll is underway so the DHSS will pretty soon have the answer they want and will then move on to pressure Tynwald to accept fluoridation.

 

Chinahand may well be a prolific and detailed poster, s/he however has not yet earned my respect, especially with they way s/he repeatedly insults other posters within debate - if that is what turns you on and earns your 'respect' then good for you, you are welcome to it.

[Chinahand]

Chinahand I still think your missing the point. Mass forced medication is morally wrong and I suspect it will soon be declaired legally wrong if a test case goes ahead.

 

Jimbms, I've always said I'm basically neutral on this - I am beating up saveourwater over his absoulte distortion of evidence and expert conclusions.

 

But on the issue of mass medication - I basically don't think it is medication - are people who drink naturally fluorinated water being medicted? I don't think so - with artificial fluoridation I believe that its controlling the level of fluoride to a naturally occurring, but safe level.

 

I am also certain that courts etc will have little truck with claims of forced medication - 60 years of anti-efforts in the US, the Midlands, the North East etc should show you that is a non starter - they'd have done it if they could! Interestingly Wiki shows that challenges right up to Supreme Court level failed to overturn California's mandation of fluoridation.

 

I'm having trouble thinking of an analogy of the morality of the fact everyone is exposed to fluoride in the water - something like everyone been forced to accept mobile phone radiation, even though it may be harmful at some level due to the advantages of it generally(I've posted earlier that research has found that there's a correlation between childhood leukemia and mobile phone masts with about 5 kids a year affected - note correlation is not causation!).

 

We discovered that area A (with naturally fluorided water) had an advantage, lower cavities, which outweighs a disadvantage, an increase in mottling which in the majority of cases did not concern the people who had it. We being human have the ability to provide this advantage artificially in are B. Morally is doing this right or wrong.

 

For me, I'm reasonably neutral - I expect to expose my kids to fluoride no matter what is done to our water supply. I am troubled that morally people should insist that they are not exposed to something that will be advantagous to someone else and which will have no measurable ill effect on them simply due to their personal qualms about it which are not evidence based.

 

I see little downside for me and a considerable upside for others. I don't have the view that everything should be pure or whatever - it should be safe.

 

I also find the arguments saying people don't bother cleaning their teeth and so its their own problem particularly convincing. People have consistently ignored the message to look after their teeth - I don't see what is going to radically change that. I, as a tax payer, am responsible for paying for picking up the mess they make and I want to find the simplest way of improving dental care with the least disruption.

 

I don't see fluoridation as being particularly problematic based on those considerations.

 

Ireland does it. Usually the Celtic Tiger is admired on this Island. The idea that the midlands or the North East of the UK is blighted and people's rights trampled on seems palpably rubbish.

 

Personally I am certain our politicians don't have the balls to do it. I think I regret that, but well that is how the system works - scare people, make it seem like a huge issue and then let the politicians bottle it. Well done saveourwater - the Island will remain towards the end of dental care league tables and the costs will remain high to treat it.