Fluoride In The Water

[saveourwater]

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.

 

I think in the interests of establishing moral character for both sides, it's only fair these messages are revealed by one side or the other.

 

 

I've asked Pontiuspilot to reveal the messages. I can't there are no messages in my 'sent messages' folder, I don't know why I don't delete them they just don't appear there. I have nothing to be ashamed of and I again request Pontiuspilot to post up the messages they claim are so nasty.

[Chinahand]

... there are no messages in my 'sent messages' folder, I don't know why I don't delete them they just don't appear there.

To save a PM you must select the relevent box when you write it and before you send it. I don't know if this can be set as a default, but I have to remember to tick it in the few PMs I want to keep.

[saveourwater]

To save a PM you must select the relevent box when you write it and before you send it. I don't know if this can be set as a default, but I have to remember to tick it in the few PMs I want to keep.

 

Oh right, thanks I did not know that.

 

Going from memory though after Pontiuspilot accused me of cowardice, and of being a fanatic and a scaremonger and demanding that I reveal my name on the forum (which I did) they then also started to copy their posts as messages to me.

 

They also attacked our website and said that it was full of inaccuracies and that science would win the day and that they had warned me before about distortion of data, Pontiuspilot also repeated that they had an honours degree in chemistry “unlike you sunshine” I think were the exact words used.

 

There were then a couple of exchanges between us and the only things I can think that Pontiuspilot may have taken exception to were that I asked if they had specialised in fluorine chemistry, I joked ‘surprise surprise’ after telling them a link they had sent me did not work and I pointed out that some of the messages sent were illegible drivel because they were very oddly worded and mis-spelt. I accepted the fact that not everyone can spell (even supposedly highly educated people) but that if they were going to persist in sending me unfounded, insulting e-mails and accuse me of cowardice that perhaps they would have the courtesy to run the messages through a spellchecker first so that I could read them a little easier.

 

Apart from that I can’t think what could have caused such offence, oh other than I also asked who was the real coward, someone who has revealed their name and publicly fought the DHSS propaganda for the past 5 years or someone who accuses another of cowardice (without proper basis for doing so) and hides behind a pseudonim on the internet?

 

 

Is that about right Pontiuspilot?

[ans]

I pointed out that some of the messages sent were illegible drivel because they were very oddly worded and mis-spelt. I accepted the fact that not everyone can spell (even supposedly highly educated people) but that if they were going to persist in sending me unfounded, insulting e-mails and accuse me of cowardice that perhaps they would have the courtesy to run the messages through a spellchecker first so that I could read them a little easier.

 

pseudonim

 

lulz

[camembert]

Now let’s look at dental fluorosis and bear in mind that dental fluorosis usually affects more than just one tooth and can affect the entire mouth (well in nearly all the examples I have ever seen of the condition take a look here Fluorosis LINK), anyway let’s be conservative and say that just the front 2 teeth have to be treated instead of say 4 or 6.

 

2 x £320 = £640 x 20 = £12,800 the £320 is the price for ‘private’ treatment of dental fluorosis via veneering from the same Onchan surgery and we already know that you have to go private because you cannot have dental fluorosis treated on the NHS.

 

However this £320 per tooth not only has to come out of your own pocket (or the parents pockets) but I believe it is advisable that veneers are not carried out until you are at least 18 years old. So if you get this fluorosis under 18 (which you will) you have to go around for years with manky looking teeth, compared to a toothache which can be treated within days. How is this going to affect the child emotionally and psychologically?

 

So what you have just done Chinahand by fluoridating the Manx water is to have ‘potentially’ saved the tax payer £7,650 per cohort of 100 children but you have added a burden to an unknown sector of the tax paying population of £12,800.

 

Not only that but it is highly likely that some of those affected by fluorosis will not be able to afford the private treatment, so you have effectively introduced a new disease of the poor. Added to this you have the expense of the upkeep of treatment for the dental fluorosis, yes fillings also require upkeep but to keep veneering teeth every 10 years or so you need to remove 0.5 mm of enamel eventually resulting in crowning or capping of the teeth so potentially a huge cost over a lifetime one which many will simply never be able to afford.

 

Another case of SOW exaggerating! Veneers are not the only option of treating fluorosis. There are other simple, cheaper, less invasive procedures availble.

[saveourwater]

Another case of SOW exaggerating! Veneers are not the only option of treating fluorosis. There are other simple, cheaper, less invasive procedures availble.

 

 

How have I exaggerated? Chinahand has established from the data that these are the more serious levels of fluorosis that require the more expensive treatment, not bleaching or micro abrasion of questionable or very mild fluorosis.

 

All I have done is calculated the cost of dealing with that based on a local provider of the service and compared that with filling or extracting.

 

Of course we have not yet even gone into the costs of the chemicals and equipment, training of staff and emergency services and the cost of upgrading their equipment to deal with a potential disaster. Or any of the other costs involved with fluoridation – but that would just be scaremongering or exaggeration to include those things wouldn’t it?

[Chinahand]

Another case of SOW exaggerating! Veneers are not the only option of treating fluorosis. There are other simple, cheaper, less invasive procedures availble.

 

 

How have I exaggerated? Chinahand has established from the data that these are the more serious levels of fluorosis that require the more expensive treatment, not bleaching or micro abrasion of questionable or very mild fluorosis.

Saveourwater again and again you show yourself incapable of digesting information.

 

Quite categorically I have not established that these are the more serous levels of fluorosis.

 

As I have said repeatedly I am taking ALL fluorosis above questionable in my figures - very mild, mild, moderate and severe.

 

Camembert is exactly correct that by far the majority of these cases will most likely need NO intervention whatsoever. Of the remaining most will probably be polishable, bleachable while a tiny number will need veneers.

 

Another example of you exaggerating, distorting the evidence provided to you?

[Chinahand]

Chinahand

You say that fluoridation is cost effective and base this assertion on your interpretation of the latest Irish data i.e. 180 fewer filling or extractions would save more money than treating 20 cases of fluorosis so let’s look at that:-

 

180 x £42.50 = £7,650 (I got the £42.50 from a random phone call to an Onchan dental surgery and asked for the NHS price of a filling or extraction – which includes a check up).

 

Now let’s look at dental fluorosis and bear in mind that dental fluorosis usually affects more than just one tooth and can affect the entire mouth (well in nearly all the examples I have ever seen of the condition take a look here Fluorosis LINK), anyway let’s be conservative and say that just the front 2 teeth have to be treated instead of say 4 or 6.

 

2 x £320 = £640 x 20 = £12,800 the £320 is the price for‘private’ treatment of dental fluorosis via veneering from the same Onchan surgery and we already know that you have to go private because you cannot have dental fluorosis treated on the NHS.

Round and round the dialectic goes – is it zeroing in on truth? – who knows! But as far as I am aware humanity has not found a better way to examine issues!

 

Saveourwater - come on please - you are comparing a subsidized NHS charge vrs a profit included private fee. You are using an average figure for fillings, but a major intervention for EVERY case of fluorosis.

 

I've already raised multiple times that by far the majority of incidences of fluorosis will not be aesthetically problematic and will need no intervention whatsoever. As I say above I am included all fluorosis above questionable in these figures - even the very mildest cases which are of absolutely no issue aesthetically (this makes up 60% of cases with mild making up another 20%).

 

This study from the US - the most toothy-white-smile-obsessed country in the world - puts the prevalence of fluorosis which could cause aesthetic problems at 2% - you are using 20% - 10 times the level.

 

When dealing with uncertainty it can be helpful to use a breakeven point - assuming an average cost of treatment of a cavity at £42.50 (as it is subsidized probably an underestimate) and the treatment of fluorosis at £640 (probably an exaggeration: this site discusses options in naturally highly fluorinated areas of India – veneers are recommended after bleeching and polishing).

 

Then the break even point is 11 cases of fluorosis cost the same as 180 NHS standard fillings.

 

In other words if the occurrence of aesthetically damaging fluorosis was above 11% it would not be economic to fluorinate and treat it vrs the costs of 180 standard fillings.

 

But just a second - we are not talking about standard fillings. If you took 180 incidences of tooth decay you would see a wide range of problems - all would need filling, but some would be particularly distressing - as some of the photos put up have shown.

 

In my figures - being as generous as possible to the antis, I've said if you fluorinate in 100 15-year-olds there will be 180 fewer cavities which either have been or will need to be filled and 20 more cases of fluorosis AT ANY LEVEL above questionable.

 

The US research intimates that 2 of these will be aesthetically problematic.

 

It is highly likely that you would be able to match up one to one the aesthetically problematic cases of fluorosis with equally problematic cases of decay. Both distressing, both expensive to treat. But then you would be left with over 160 cases (in all likelihood 178) of tooth decay with no equivilent examples of fluorosis.

 

Saveourwater has accused me of being uncaring and concentrating on the economic. That is not true. It is the absolute numbers I am concentrating on. 178 cases of tooth decay - that number of cavities will range from the smallest hole to severe decay - beyond the economics of treating it I believe those 178 fillings needing to be filled carry a large ethical burden.

 

It is Saveourwater who thinks 2 cases of fluorosis are more important than 178 fillings. Using his economics he would say 11 cases of fluorosis outweigh 180 times a child requiring to be injected, and a tooth drilled and either filled or removed.

 

Beyond the economics there is an argument to be made that the people suffering from these 180 interventions are just as important than the much much smaller number of people suffering fluorosis.

 

For me the evidence shows that not only is it economic to fluorinate, but also it will reduce distressing interventions in numbers that far, far outweigh the tiny increase in problems due to severe fluorosis.

[saveourwater]

Chinahand

 

You said “20 treatments to cap mottled teeth vrs 180 treatments to drill and either fill or remove decayed teeth.”

 

So that is what I based the veneering calculation on 20 x cap mottled teeth as per your statement.

 

If you are now changing that to cap, bleaching and abrasions then you must do the calculations.

 

I would say though that for sure 7 out of every 100 would need to have veneers at least because those have mild to severe fluorosis, so £320 x 2 x 7 = £4,480 and don’t forget we are still only veneering the front 2 teeth when the whole mouth could be affected, so this figure could very reasonably be doubled or even trebled for a true reflection on costs and still only treat a maximum of 6 teeth if the whole mouth is affected.

 

So then what remains? Another 7 that have a milder form of fluorosis that can maybe be bleached out or blended in via abrasion, and a further 9 who have questionable fluorosis that will most likely not require treatment – what does this cost, and not on the NHS?

 

So what have you saved now after you have dropped the percentage of 15-year-old children from having 83% normal teeth in appearance down to 63% by fluoridating?

 

What also of all the other costs in your financial savings plan, factor in the chemicals, factor in the equipment and maintenance of the equipment, factor in training of staff and their protective equipment, factor in training and extra equipment of the emergency services, factor in the possibility of building a new full time emergency response unit at Sulby, factor in the costs of increasing the government insurance levels as is done in the UK. Then see what savings you are left with Chinahand.

 

You appear to be standing on your fillings / extractions saved cost and heralding it as the saviour of Manx dental health but you clearly have not even begun to calculate the true cost of fluoridation, neither have this government.

 

Before we proceed any further you also need to re-do your calculations and include the data on fissure sealant interventions and also factor in the level of untreated decay in Ireland as I have already requested you to do, otherwise your current figures on DMFT are totally meaningless.

[Miss Take]

What also of all the other costs in your financial savings plan, factor in the chemicals, factor in the equipment and maintenance of the equipment, factor in training of staff and their protective equipment, factor in training and extra equipment of the emergency services, factor in the possibility of building a new full time emergency response unit at Sulby

 

You're funny.

[saveourwater]

This study from the US - the most toothy-white-smile-obsessed country in the world - puts the prevalence of fluorosis which could cause aesthetic problems at 2% - you are using 20% - 10 times the level.

 

The US research intimates that 2 of these will be aesthetically problematic.

 

It is Saveourwater who thinks 2 cases of fluorosis are more important than 178 fillings. Using his economics he would say 11 cases of fluorosis outweigh 180 times a child requiring to be injected, and a tooth drilled and either filled or removed.

 

 

Once again you try to be clever and twist the argument from the point at hand - the Irish data - and bring in external data to back your case.

 

The reason we chose the fluorosis data from Ireland is that they are our close neighbours geographically and are also very similar in background levels of natural fluoride.

 

Stick to what we are discussing please and stick to a region where we can expect to have a very similar result if fluoridation goes ahead.

[camembert]

How have I exaggerated? Chinahand has established from the data that these are the more serious levels of fluorosis that require the more expensive treatment, not bleaching or micro abrasion of questionable or very mild fluorosis.

 

All I have done is calculated the cost of dealing with that based on a local provider of the service and compared that with filling or extracting.

 

Of course we have not yet even gone into the costs of the chemicals and equipment, training of staff and emergency services and the cost of upgrading their equipment to deal with a potential disaster. Or any of the other costs involved with fluoridation – but that would just be scaremongering or exaggeration to include those things wouldn’t it?

 

"Severe" Fluorosis

 

Look, no Veneers...

[Chinahand]

This study from the US - the most toothy-white-smile-obsessed country in the world - puts the prevalence of fluorosis which could cause aesthetic problems at 2% - you are using 20% - 10 times the level.

 

The US research intimates that 2 of these will be aesthetically problematic.

 

 

Once again you try to be clever and twist the argument from the point at hand - the Irish data - and bring in external data to back your case.

 

The reason we chose the fluorosis data from Ireland is that they are our close neighbours geographically and are also very similar in background levels of natural fluoride.

 

Stick to what we are discussing please and stick to a region where we can expect to have a very similar result if fluoridation goes ahead.

I think you are missing the point - the Irish Data records Dean's index - this records fluorosis, but does not record the location - if the molars are affected, but not the front teeth it is unlikely that it will be aesthetically concerning - the US study deliberately concentrated on aesthetics in a fluorinated area. We can argue til the cows come home about applicability, but the majority of tooth surfaces are not visible - it is fluorosis on the front of the front teeth which will cause aesthetic concern. I am not surprised that aesthetic concern is less prevelent than high Dean's index fluorosis.

[Polaris]

How have I exaggerated? Chinahand has established from the data that these are the more serious levels of fluorosis that require the more expensive treatment, not bleaching or micro abrasion of questionable or very mild fluorosis.

 

All I have done is calculated the cost of dealing with that based on a local provider of the service and compared that with filling or extracting.

 

Of course we have not yet even gone into the costs of the chemicals and equipment, training of staff and emergency services and the cost of upgrading their equipment to deal with a potential disaster. Or any of the other costs involved with fluoridation – but that would just be scaremongering or exaggeration to include those things wouldn’t it?

 

"Severe" Fluorosis

 

Look, no Veneers...

If no veneers are used, won't the teeth quickly become stained by food and drink to look like this - again?

[Miss Take]

If no veneers are used, won't the teeth quickly become stained by food and drink to look like this - again?

 

If you drink lots of tea and coffee, maybe - but it would have nothing to do with fluorosis.