Fluoride In The Water

[saveourwater]

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.

 

It has everything to do with fluorosis. Fluorosis is the malformation of dental enamel and dentine, the enamel becomes more porous and readily takes up stain from everyday food and drink. Abrasion and bleaching are quick fix options, they may look good for a while but will become stained again no matter what you eat or drink. If the teeth have pitting then the staining is much harder to eradicate and you also have to remove more enamel to get an even surface.

 

Veneering creates a protective covering over the damage, they could last a few weeks if you are very unlucky or they could last years.

[saveourwater]

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.

 

The report does contain some data on the front two teeth affected by fluorosis, although by asking the parents and the children themselves it is not absolutely clear. The report authors should have recorded this, they were checking fluorosis and it would have been very easy for them to include data on whether or not fluororis was present in the upper front 4 teeth. Why they choose not to do this and instead leave it up to the parents and children is debatable.

 

Whatever way you look at it no matter where the fluorosis appears dental fluorosis is still a sign of 'systemic toxicity'. Do you understand that Chinahand, that means that those children with dental fluorosis have been 'poisoned' by fluoride. What you seem to be saying is that if fluoridation can save some children having a few fillings but also result in the 'poisoning' of other children by fluoride with the possible expense of having to also pay for restorative dentistry themselves that is OK.

 

You also seem to be choosing to ignore the following point and continuing to base your argument on innacurate figures.

 

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]

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.

 

It has everything to do with fluorosis. Fluorosis is the malformation of dental enamel and dentine, the enamel becomes more porous and readily takes up stain from everyday food and drink. Abrasion and bleaching are quick fix options, they may look good for a while but will become stained again no matter what you eat or drink. If the teeth have pitting then the staining is much harder to eradicate and you also have to remove more enamel to get an even surface.

 

 

For once you might have a point. I stand corrected.

[ballaughbiker]

Veneering creates a protective covering over the damage, they could last a few weeks if you are very unlucky

I suppose that is true if you are unlucky enough to chose a crap dentist who can't do veneers. Done properly they could last 20 years plus.

 

Whilst it is hardly surprising, you are massively overhyping the chance of fluorosis and making out it would save 'one or two fillings' in a handful of children. Both are unreasonable extrapolations of the real life situation. I speak from experience and can say that fluorosis at 1ppm is rare. To make out it would be commonplace is completely unreasonable. It is also unreasonable to make out that it would only save one or two fillings. Fillings lead to bigger fillings which lead to crowns and root fillings and if you are unlucky extraction and plastic teeth. Whilst I have escaped the last one, I have a mouthful of the rest which I know I wouldn't have if I had been brought up in a fluoridated area OR had some other fluoride supplement to my diet.

[saveourwater]

Whilst it is hardly surprising, you are massively overhyping the chance of fluorosis and making out it would save 'one or two fillings' in a handful of children. Both are unreasonable extrapolations of the real life situation. I speak from experience and can say that fluorosis at 1ppm is rare. To make out it would be commonplace is completely unreasonable. It is also unreasonable to make out that it would only save one or two fillings. Fillings lead to bigger fillings which lead to crowns and root fillings and if you are unlucky extraction and plastic teeth. Whilst I have escaped the last one, I have a mouthful of the rest which I know I wouldn't have if I had been brought up in a fluoridated area OR had some other fluoride supplement to my diet.

 

BB I have repeatedly requested that Chinahand re-work his estimates to include other pertinent data. Until that is done the perceived fillings / extractions saved is unknown.

 

One could just as easily turn your argument on fillings, if you have a 'crap' dentist they will need replacing sooner rather than later. On the other hand they could last in excess of 20 years or more.

 

The fact remains that any level of fluorosis on any tooth surface is a sign of sytemic toxicity - fluoride poisoning.

 

Fluorosis means that the tooth is not normal and has not developed correctly. The tooth will be more porous, more prone to wear and staining and could eventually lead to chipping, crumbling and decay.

 

If it is disfiguiring enough to require treatment to cover it up that treatment will not be available on the NHS and will have to be paid for by the patient or the parents.

 

Is it fair to 'poison' any portion of the population (and make them pay to fix the damage) to save some children having fillings?

[Chinahand]

You also seem to be choosing to ignore the following point and continuing to base your argument on innacurate figures.

 

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.

Saveourwater - I have said my figures are back of the envelop estimations to allow the lay people on this site get some idea of the scale of the issue.

 

If it is 120 or 180 or 178 or whatever fillings that will be saved, and 2 or 20 or 7 incidences of fluorosis (and I am certain that 20 is a vast vast exageration) then that is what the detailed figures will show - I am not an expert, but a layman who wants to do a first order guestimate as to the issue.

 

For the exact calculation I leave it to the experts. You, as ever, don't believe the experts, you think they are hiding data, distorting things, pretending that the ill effects of fluorosis are being ignored.

 

I don't see that - I see investigative, control and educational (link1 , link2) efforts by the Irish Authorities to ensure the oral health of their population is as good as it can be. The second educational link I've provided is a nice rebuttal of the antis' "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoride" with a dedicated section on fluorosis.

 

I really question why you tar the thousands of dentists and health professionals who have worked to produce the reports you have cherry picked - all of which acknowledge and quantify the effects of fluorosis, but view it in the overall context of improved oral health.

 

SOW can't get over the hurdle that he just won't accept fluoridation, no matter what the evidence shows of improved oral health with the positives outweighing the negaitives.

 

I'm happy if people disagree on the moral argument, but the distortion of the Irish Reports that conclude fluoridation is a success to claim they show it is a failure basically sums up Saveourwater's efforts: Exaggerating and Distorting.

[ballaughbiker]

One could just as easily turn your argument on fillings, if you have a 'crap' dentist they will need replacing sooner rather than later. On the other hand they could last in excess of 20 years or more.

Er no, maybe the decay process of soft enamel is still progressing? No matter how good the filling is, it will then fail and the disease process will progress.

The fact remains that any level of fluorosis on any tooth surface is a sign of sytemic toxicity

Agreed but only to a minor degree. The use of the word poison in the rest of your phrase (not quoted) is way, way over the top but its good for scaring people.....

Fluorosis means that the tooth is not normal and has not developed correctly.

True but that may be beneficial when it comes to decay. That's why they want to do it......

ould eventually lead to chipping, crumbling and decay.

Untrue. But you have just describe decay which is what fluoride reduces. Dramatically.

If it is disfiguiring enough to require treatment to cover it up that treatment will not be available on the NHS and will have to be paid for by the patient or the parents.

Who says? and how many a year are we talking about? 1 or 2?

Is it fair to 'poison' any portion of the population

There's that emotive word again. Fluoride would certainly cause changes which anyone who has seen the ravages of decay and the misery it causes would think beneficial. How can that be poisoning.? Taking cyanide is poisoning. Yes I thought of something extreme, hey, just like you!

to save some children having fillings

How about substituting "to save generations from (quite possibly a lifetime of) the expense and pain associated with one of the most common diseases known to man". That's the truth. Trying to intimate it will save just a few kids only one or two fillings will make people think the risk is not worth the benefit. Of course that's what you want them to think. It is a distortion of the truth though.

 

Whilst I do not disagree with all you say, I note you have used a well honed anti-anything technique of dramatically playing down the benefits whilst massively over hyping the risks. I heard the same techniques being used thirty years ago when I went to my first anti-fluoride meeting across. None of the terrible things mentioned there have come to pass.

[saveourwater]

No Chinahand you misunderstand me and where I am coming from on this.

 

In fully fluoridated Ireland the percentage of 15 year old children with normal teeth is only 63%, i.e. no fluorosis of any kind. In the un-fluoridated areas of Ireland and non-fluoridated Northern Ireland the percentages of 15-year-old children with normal teeth are 83% and 86% respectively.

 

The difference is clear.

 

What I am saying is that despite any perceived ‘success’ of fluoridation saving an as yet unspecified level of fillings / extractions it is wrong to ‘poison’ another set of children, leaving a proportion of them with ‘damaged’ teeth and with great expense to fix that damage.

 

You on the other hand see this as an acceptable trade off, that is fine and that is where we differ.

 

You want to see some Manx children ‘poisoned’ in order to save fillings and extractions for other children whose parents should be more responsible and ensure proper dental hygiene takes place. You also agree that financially this makes sense, to potentially save the tax payer money but to put a heavy financial burden on an unknown sector of the population.

 

Though I doubt fluoridation is cost effective, as you need to factor in all the other associated costs that I have listed time and again but that you continuously choose to ignore.

 

What we would prefer is that this government invest money and resources into a proper dental health programme for all children. That they revert back to the days of the early 1990’s when we had the best teeth as compared to the UK with a decay level of just 37% for 5 year old’s instead of today’s level of 52% and when we regularly inspected our children’s teeth bi-annually at primary and middle school – we don’t even inspect them at all now and surprise – we have a reported dental problem.

 

We do not accept fluoridation as a means to reduce tooth decay, because it does carry dangers and it will adversely affect another portion of the population as a result of fluoride ‘poisoning’. It is also highly likely that it is not cost-effective as claimed and could have a detrimental affect on Manx livestock, which is why Minister Gawne has stated DAFF are against it.

 

We also of course disagree with fluoridation on the moral argument. No government should be able to do what no doctor can do and that is medicate you against your will.

[saveourwater]

Is it fair to 'poison' any portion of the population

There's that emotive word again. Fluoride would certainly cause changes which anyone who has seen the ravages of decay and the misery it causes would think beneficial. How can that be poisoning.? Taking cyanide is poisoning. Yes I thought of something extreme, hey, just like you!

 

So BB, are you saying that fluorosis is NOT a sign that someone has fluoride poisoning?

[ballaughbiker]

Not a totally unexpected question but first you must define what you mean by poisoning. I suspect it may not be the same as everyone else but its not fair to presume...

[Miss Take]

Anything can be poisonous (including water) if you take it in large enough quantities. My question would be - at what point does fluoride become toxic and is it well above a level that is statistically significantly beneficial to teeth? If so, then fluoridate, if not then don't.

[Chinahand]

Round and Round we go - Saveourwater will go on about poisoning and ill effects - I'll go and find blind scientific assessements of fluorosis comparing naturally fluorinated and non fluorinated children living in Scotland:

 

Conclusions: Considerable caries benefit has accrued to those Morayshire rural children who have received naturally fluoridated water (at 1 ppm) throughout their lives, as compared to their socioeconomically similar, nonfluoridated rural counterparts. Furthermore, ... only borderline mild fluorosis disadvantages have been noted clinically, and none by the subjects' own aesthetic perceptions.

 

I fully acknowledge this is a small study - only 101 school children who had drunk fluorinated water over their lifetimes were tested.

 

But it was a blind test - those assessing the fluorosis had no idea if they were checking fluorinated, or non-fluorinated teeth. Both lay and dental professionals assessed the teeth.

 

None of the children had aesthetically problematic fluorosis - which wouldn't be statistically unusual if fluorosis was at a low level of about 2% as concluded in other research I've found and put up. But if the dangers were higher as Saveourwater claims - well you'd expect to see it - they don't: none of the subjects had aesthetic problems.

 

I strongly disagree with saveourwater's contention that teeth with fluorosis crumble and are weak - quite the opposite - it is the fluoride in the teeth which makes the teeth strong. He can also go on about poisoning - yes fluorosis is the effect that occurs when you take in too much fluoride, at 1.0ppm the effect of this poisoning - mottled teeth at a level that is not noticed in 101 kids who have been poisoned all their lives. But they have the advantage of having 96.4% less dental caries than people living in a non fluorinated area - go do the maths - this is a substantial benefit.

[saveourwater]

Anything can be poisonous (including water) if you take it in large enough quantities. My question would be - at what point does fluoride become toxic and is it well above a level that is statistically significantly beneficial to teeth? If so, then fluoridate, if not then don't.

 

Well if at the same time that fluoride at 0.8 - 1.0 part per million (the level they fluoridate in Ireland) is supposedly saving fillings or extractions is also causing fluorosis then there is no margin of safety.

 

If say at 1 part per million fluoride saved fillings and extractions and then at 100 parts per million dental fluorosis started to appear then that would be an acceptable safety margin and I believe on a par with other margins of safety for other substances i.e. ‘at least’ 100 times higher before any discernable effects are noticed.

 

Fluoride has a toxicity level somewhere between lead and arsenic yet the maximum contaminant levels for lead and arsenic are set below well below 50 parts per billion. For fluoride the level is 1,500 parts per billion (or 1.5 parts per million) - how can that be right? Even at that level the government want to deliberately add 1,000 parts per billion (1 part per million) to the water supply, the MCL is there to protect health, it is not a license to pollute up to that level.

[ballaughbiker]

Agreed China its all be said before but Goebbles used the same repetitive technique to indoctrinate.

[saveourwater]

Agreed China its all be said before but Goebbles used the same repetitive technique to indoctrinate.

 

Cool do I get to invoke Godwin's Law now?