Fluoride In The Water

[ballaughbiker]

Quite possibly. I think I've said all I can on the subject. It is getting very repetitive but many (including old Josef) recognise that, in itself, is a technique. All I have done is answer the points you and one or two other keep repeating (hoping something will stick) if I think they are unreasonable. If readers of this post haven't made their mind up by now, I don't think they ever will.

[saveourwater]

Quite possibly. I think I've said all I can on the subject. It is getting very repetitive but many (including old Josef) recognise that, in itself, is a technique. All I have done is answer the points you and one or two other keep repeating (hoping something will stick) if I think they are unreasonable. If readers of this post haven't made their mind up by now, I don't think they ever will.

 

Two in a row, that must be a record.

[jimbms]

Godwin's Law: prov.

[usenet] “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. Godwin himself has discussed the subject. See also Formosa's Law.

[Chinahand]

It is always dangerous when you start seeing what you can find on Pubmed - there is a huge amount of research ongoing on fluorosis, fluoride etc. Type in fluorosis and you get 2988 papers - the idea that there is a conspiracy to ignore this research is laughable - thousands of researchers dilligently gathering evidence.

 

This study from Oz isn't connected with fluoridation, but just records how perceptions of oral health alter with caries and fluorosis. The 2007 study updates something touched on in the York Report - people find mild fluorosis more aesthetic than no fluorosis.

 

CONCLUSION: Caries and less acceptable appearance showed a negative impact, while mild fluorosis had a positive impact on child and parental OHRQoL.

[saveourwater]

It is always dangerous when you start seeing what you can find on Pubmed - there is a huge amount of research ongoing on fluorosis, fluoride etc. Type in fluorosis and you get 2988 papers - the idea that there is a conspiracy to ignore this research is laughable - thousands of researchers dilligently gathering evidence.

 

This study from Oz isn't connected with fluoridation, but just records how perceptions of oral health alter with caries and fluorosis. The 2007 study updates something touched on in the York Report - people find mild fluorosis more aesthetic than no fluorosis.

 

CONCLUSION: Caries and less acceptable appearance showed a negative impact, while mild fluorosis had a positive impact on child and parental OHRQoL.

 

You are getting desperate, now you are trying to say that fluoride poisoning is attractive! Was it explained to the parents and children exactly what has happened to fluorosed teeth - I doubt it.

 

Some of these studies have images of decay alongside images of very mild fluorosis and then a questions is asked which do you prefer, of course it will be obvious what the answer is going to be - a bit like our DHSS telephone poll (or so they hope) but that doesn't make it right does it?

[manshimajin]

Leaving the pro and anti scientific arguments aside (obviously both can be proved by their advocates) the other area of debate seems to be:

 

In favour of adding fluoride to the general drinking water supply - it is a good thing because irresponsible parents won't look after their kids' teeth so the Government must step in to add it to everyone's drinking water.

 

Against adding fluoride to drinking water - this should be an individual decision not an imposition on everyone because of the behaviour of an irresponsible few.

 

Does anyone know how much more effective putting fluoride into drinking water is when compared with fluoride treatment at the dentist and use of fluoridated toothpaste?

[spikydu]

had a phonecall tonight from some company phoning on behalf of the iom gov looking me to do a survey on fluride in water

 

any one else been getting thses phone calls ??

[Chinahand]

Leaving the pro and anti scientific arguments aside (obviously both can be proved by their advocates) the other area of debate seems to be:

 

In favour of adding fluoride to the general drinking water supply - it is a good thing because irresponsible parents won't look after their kids' teeth so the Government must step in to add it to everyone's drinking water.

 

Against adding fluoride to drinking water - this should be an individual decision not an imposition on everyone because of the behaviour of an irresponsible few.

 

Does anyone know how much more effective putting fluoride into drinking water is when compared with fluoride treatment at the dentist and use of fluoridated toothpaste?

I think that sums up the issues very well. The arguments about science are basically clear with nuance only on fringes. By far the main issues are whether people should accept a universal intervention. That is the main issue in Europe.

 

Over efficacy - its difficult to say - they are basically additive - the Irish data - (110 less cavities which need to be, or have been, filled or removed in permanent teeth and 70 in baby teeth for every 100 15-year-olds with a few cases of fluorosis; 2 (US figures), or is it 4 (all additive Irish figures above very mild)) - take place in an environment where fluoride toothpaste etc is used.

 

In the 3rd world where fluoride toothpaste isn't readily used the advantages of fluoridation are even larger - in the developed world people take in fluoride via toothpaste etc so unfluorinated areas aren't at such a disadvantage.

 

There are legitimate debates about whether fluoride levels should be 1.0 or 0.75 ppm or whatever in developed countries where fluoride is used extensively in toothpastes etc - lowering the fluoride level will reduce fluorosis. For all saveourwater's claims about it been surpressed or ignored it is an issue.

 

So unless you overdose - (and the main risk factor in both fluorinated and unfluorinated areas for fluorosis is swallowing toothpaste while young Link Pubmed paper: note to self, stop the little ones eating the stuff!) - it will improve your oral hygene to drink fluorinated water, use fluoride toothpaste and have fluoride treatment at the dentist.

[Chinahand]

You are getting desperate, now you are trying to say that fluoride poisoning is attractive! Was it explained to the parents and children exactly what has happened to fluorosed teeth - I doubt it.

 

Some of these studies have images of decay alongside images of very mild fluorosis and then a questions is asked which do you prefer, of course it will be obvious what the answer is going to be - a bit like our DHSS telephone poll (or so they hope) but that doesn't make it right does it?

 

You are as ever obsessing about poisoning.

 

Fluoride accumulates in the body - I think we can agree with that.

 

At low levels of accumulation this results in the teeth being stronger and no other measurable side effects - there is no definable pathology. If you want to call that poisoning can, but you have a very strange definition of poisoning.

 

As accumulation increases the teeth as well as being stronger start to get white flecks in them. At low levels this is not noticeable, or is even seen as being better than non flecked teeth - a fact noted by both the York review and the paper I linked to - there is no definable pathology. If you want to call that poisoning can, but you have a very strange definition of poisoning.

 

At even further accumulation the flecks become larger and start to become obvious and become aesthetically problematic. This is rare in fluorinated areas and requires people to swallow toothpaste etc.If you want to call that poisoning you can, but medically it is seen as a cosmetic and psychological issue - still a genuine problem, but one without a direct pathology.

 

At even further levels of accumulation the fluorosis starts to build up in the skeleton - I think there is reason to call this poisoning. It is a problem in the 3rd world where people rely on unsuitable water. The World Health Organization goes to great effort to advise and protect populations with this problem.

 

I think it is important to note that huge populations have lived historically with high fluoride levels - areas of Naples, for example, have concentrations at 4.0 ppm. Strange, saveourwater would describle an area with that level as unliveable. Fluorosis is an issue, but only that - this to me puts the lie who make claims about cancer etc at 1.0ppm - it would be measurable in the natural experiments of huge populations living in areas with far higher concentrations, but the ill effects (other than fluorosis) are just not there.

[Polaris]

So unless you overdose - (and the main risk factor in both fluorinated and unfluorinated areas for fluorosis is swallowing toothpaste while young Link Pubmed paper: note to self, stop the little ones eating the stuff!) - it will improve your oral hygene to drink fluorinated water, use fluoride toothpaste and have fluoride treatment at the dentist.

Is fluoride essential for human health and is there a daily intake we should not exceed? You can have too much of a good thing and you can definitely have too much of a bad thing.

 

Do you ride side-car with ballaughbiker?

[saveourwater]

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.

 

Chinahand

 

What is your opinion on the above please? You seem to be suggesting that dental fluorosis is NOT a visible sign of fluoride poisoning – is that correct?

 

If so what would you say is a ‘discernable affect’ of fluoride poisoning – ‘skeletal fluorosis’? If so do you agree that dental fluorosis i.e. that too much fluoride has been ingested and has resulted in the malformation of the hardest substance in the body (dental enamel) is not a discernable affect?

 

Your arguments and logic seem to become more twisted with every post. How can a substance that readily accumulates in the body, that lies between toxicity of lead and arsenic and that causes the so-called beneficial effects at the same time as the most serious levels of dental fluorosis – i,e, severe fluorosis (albeit it in a minor subset of the population) at 1 part per million be beneficial for ‘all’ in your eyes and also have a conclusive margin of safety?

 

This simply cannot be the case. Either it is beneficial for everyone at the doses you are recommending with no harm to anyone else - unless far higher dosages are ingested, or it is abandoned.

 

Just because other countries have fluoridated at these levels and are now stuck in that paradigm does not mean that the Isle of Man has to follow their example, to suggest otherwise is sheer madness.

[Hermes]

You cannot force a medication on someone except under certain stipulations of the Mental Health Act, or under emergency 'common law'-type measures. It is a form of assault on the person.

 

The government has lied to the public in its leaflet on the matter by insinuating that dental caries is caused by fluoride deficiency.

 

In my opinion, this confirms that the people who compiled the leaflet are not to be trusted. What is more, they are seeking another opportunity to erode the freedom of the individual to determine for themselves.

 

Although I do not agree with SaveOurWater's promotion of Fluoride as purely a toxin (it might be considered a medical treatment to strengthen tooth enamel too), I commend those reading this forum to consider this: The National Poisons Information Service (based at Guys Hospital London) consider Fluoride to be a potentially toxic substance which can be fatal, and cite such information on their website (available to subscribing medical institutions). They even cite cases where public water fluoridation accidents have occured that have put people at risk. As an interesting historical addendum to this, I might add that the people of Iceland suffered a natural castrophe in 1783-84 when Fluorides released in the eruption of the volcano Laki killed 50% of the Island's livestock and resulted in the death of 25% of the human population (largely due to famine, it is said). This suggests that livestock is more susceptible to fluoride poisoning than people, so how will this affect the Island's animals? What evidence do we have that it is safe?

There is certainly no good scientific evidence to support or refute the safety of fluoridation in humans - the authors of the most important scientific study on the matter (the 'York Review') were at pains to stress this. There is probably even less evidence concerning the effects on animals, so why is the government trying to impose it on us?

 

Tooth decay is caused by behaviour patterns and the consumption of acidic sugary foods and drinks, and is a problem that tends to affect particular socio-economic groups to a greater degree than others. When our government tries to decieve us as to the facts of the matter, and even goes as far as to do so at the expense of the taxpayer, then I think ts constituent members (MHKs, Ministers, MLCs and Public Health Officers) risk losing the respect and support of the populace.

[Tarroo Ushtey]

For feck sake. This is really simple, all those people worried about their teeth, just brush the damn things 2 or 3 times a day. If you are really worried, stop eating shit food and drinking sugar in the form of fizzy drinks - simple. Those who don't look after their (or their kids teeth) probably won't drink pure water anyway, so what's the point. Leave the water as it is.

[emma]

For feck sake. This is really simple, all those people worried about their teeth, just brush the damn things 2 or 3 times a day. If you are really worried, stop eating shit food and drinking sugar in the form of fizzy drinks - simple. Those who don't look after their (or their kids teeth) probably won't drink pure water anyway, so what's the point. Leave the water as it is.

 

 

Here here... !!

 

If kids teeth are that bad.... teach them how to brush and look after their teeth properly..... - teaching kids to drink water will be the next campaign once the flouridation doesn't work cos they are still drinking fizzy pop!!! Leave the water as it is!

[incandescent]

To Chinahand

 

I acknowledge receipt of your selective reply to my posting number 279

For one claiming an interest in ‘the integrity in science’ you make no comment about the change of remit from “Studies of the effects of fluoride on health” to “Studies of the effects of fluoridated water on health” which clearly would produce a less significant outcome in respect of the wider health implications. It is these wider implications that sites such as www.fluoridealert.com are concentrating.

Your dismissal of the ‘Fluoride Deception’ book representing the definitive guide to the history of water fluoridation after 10 years research is a reflection of your concluding quote by Jonathon Swift as this appears to be an honest admission of your own position.

I come to this site with no pre conceived notions only a real interest in honest science and the rights of individuals to make informed choices.

In the case of Dr Paul Connett who you appear to dismiss without investigation, it appears to me, rather than losing the argument he is winning it by asking other professionals to validate his research. The reply from detractors such as you might otherwise have stated - ‘well, it’s only his opinion’. Please read what is presented and do not make judgements on preconceived opinion, but with knowledge. Dr Connett is well qualified to understand, present and interpret scientific data.

 

You are aware that even the more limited remit of the York Review did not find any Grade A studies on the safety or effectiveness of fluoride. Those with a legal background will be aware that opinions from Council will be a reflection of the instructions given and not a full representation of the facts (i.e. change of remit.)

It was to scientifically qualified parties that the UK Government referred to, not you; but you now appear to have taken it upon yourself to sit in judgement and advocate the fluoridation of the IOM water supplies. Whilst you appear to have many sycophants on this site who gravitate towards the perceived words of wisdom flowing from your pen and who may be persuaded by your references to research papers upon which you are reliant: but do not say which ones, so which ones are they? You say that this boisterous vibrant site which doesn’t suffer fools yet they still suffer you.

 

Scientific Expertise

 

On the subject of cherry picking you refer to the comments made by Dr Arvid Carlsson as being expressed from a standpoint of mass medication whereas his comment specifically indicated that ‘fluoridation is obsolete and against science’.

A cursory investigation of Dr Carlsson’s CV should be enough to convince all but those with fixed opinions that he should be listened to when making statements about the flawed science of water fluoridation. The Nobel Prize is awarded in recognition of those outstanding individuals able to rise above the level of collective thinking. When everyone thinks the same way there isn’t much thinking going on.

 

Toxicity

In the United States, which is the originator of water fluoridation, there is a warning clearly displayed on tubes of toothpaste containing fluoride stating under Drug Facts - Do not swallow, and if swallowed contact a Poison Control Centre. Yet a pea sized amount of fluoride toothpaste contains the same amount as an 8oz glass of water

 

Inaccurate Generalisations

 

Your inaccurate sweeping generalisation about the consensus (should have read senseless) view is that fluoride (no matter what its source) is a vital element in improving oral health and the benefits of using appropriately it far outweigh the risks.

There is then the specific issue of fluoridation – again the scientific consensus is that this also overall will result in an improvement in oral health, with the gains offset by a far smaller number of problems – mainly fluorosis.

 

You make unsubstantiated claims about improvements derived from fluoride attributable to oral health when the evidence is that there is no difference in the oral health of such an over fluoridated Country as the USA and non fluoridated Europe. What does your comment using it ‘appropriately’ mean?

 

None of your aforementioned ‘beneficial’ claims were validated by the York Review.

Your posting no. 282 confirmed that you are in favour of fluoridating the Island’s water supplies but do not say by what amount.

 

I suggest that you look in the real world from a former fluoride supporter to opponent based on actual experience from Dr. Hardy Limeback Associate Professor of Preventative dentistry. Google - Hardy Limeback.

 

Your comment about the ‘consensus’ view is not explained – what do you mean?

When you state ‘fluoride –no matter what its source’- can you comment on fluorosilicic acid which is the preferred method of ‘treatment’ in water fluoridation?

 

Your position

 

The exchanges occurring on this site have latterly proved productive insofar as your own postings have exposed your chameleon like persona. Your scientific proclamations are now devolving into political statistics. You are overlooking the ethics of water fluoridation, overlooking the definition of informed consent, overlooking scientific data unfavourable to fluoridation, overlooking the legality of advocating an unlicensed medicinal product, advocating the potential poisoning of the Islanders, particularly young children.

This is not Russia or China (where fluoridation is banned) as we still have some semblance of democracy here in the West, and unless people wake up, our fast eroding freedom will be lost. Your choice of pseudonym appears to belie your politics chinahand.

 

You refer the CDC as being in favour of fluoridation; you are apparently unaware of the following formal complaint raised by the Lillie Centre an extract of which is set out below.

 

Formal Ethics Complaint and Request for Investigation

Presented to the Joint Meeting of the Ethics Subcommittee of the Advisory Council to the CDC Director and the CDC Public Health Ethics Committee

August 9, 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Statements made by CDC and disturbing new facts acknowledged in reports from key government agencies such as the National Research Council and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture have now shown certain actions by the CDC Division of Oral Health and CDC Director to be in violation of fundamental principles of ethics. These unethical activities are occurring in CDC’s efforts to promote water fluoridation, and they demonstrate that the Oral Health Division has not in practice applied the Ethics Code that CDC promotes throughout the country. In failing to integrate and respond with integrity to the ramifications of the new information coming from reputable government sources known to CDC staff, the Oral Health Division and CDC Director have directly negatively impacted U.S. citizens who have been misled by CDC officials. Because CDC assumes top-level authority for health information dissemination, these unethical actions are serious and egregious. Avoidance of embarrassment to the organization is an insufficient and unethical reason not to disclose and appropriately respond to information from its own agency and other government agencies that contradicts CDC’s official position that fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing cavities. CDC’s actions have resulted in implementation of faulty public health policy-making at the state level and by water districts.

These following acts of commission and omission are serious breaches of the public trust. On behalf of citizens who are unaware of these breaches, we submit this complaint and request a formal investigation, corrective action by the committees and CDC, dissemination of revised information, and discipline of the responsible parties. We ask the joint Ethics Committees for a timely and public response.

 

Specifically, CDC has:

• Elected to omit vital information in its information disseminated to the public concerning vulnerable population groups that are particularly susceptible to harm from fluoride;

• Chosen to ignore its own data showing disproportionate harm by dental fluorosis in minority populations and has not actively provided this information to these groups;

• Demonstrated a severe ethical lapse in failing to appropriately disseminate its own change in policy that parents of infants be aware of the risk of dental fluorosis in their children and may wish to use unfluoridated water to mix their babies’ powdered milk formula;

• Justified fluoridation in terms that mislead Americans into confusing the

fundamental concepts of concentration versus dose. This had led citizens to believe that a low concentration of fluoride in water cannot result in a harmful dose of the chemical, regardless of volume of water consumed and other sources of fluoride -- and in this context CDC has also failed to appropriately disclose that fluoride can accumulate harmfully in the body over time; and

• Misled the public concerning the results of studies about harm from ingested fluoride.

 

Fluorosis

 

Even the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the US acknowledged that one third of children and adolescents aged 6-19 had enamel fluorosis of the teeth.

 

Out of sight out of Mind

Readers of this site who wish to be honestly informed should be aware of the report which investigates the links between fluoride and the high level of Lead in children . The report was headed by Professor Roger Masters of Government Emeritus Foundation for Neuroscience and Society. Masters and co author Coplan note that their recent studies contain the most extensive empirical evidence of the health and behavioural costs of these chemicals. "If further research confirms our findings," Masters added, "this (fluoride) may well be the worst environmental poison since leaded gasoline."

Details can be found on www.nofluoride.com/dartmouth__study.htm

 

Perhaps it is time that fluoride promoters Drs. Emerson and Kishaw should reconsider their position and reread the section of the Hippocratic Oath concerning causing harm.

 

There still remains the unanswered question as to why Dr Emerson claims he does not need to know what the existing background levels of fluoride extant on the IOM, as stated in an interview on Manx Radio.

 

WHO Statement

 

"Dental and Public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme for caries prevention." - World Health Organization. (1994). Fluorides and Oral Health. WHO Technical Report Series 846.

"In the assessment of the safety of a water supply with regard to the fluoride concentration, the total daily intake by the individual must be considered." - WHO Drinking Water Standards 1971.

 

Duty of Care

 

Where, aside from claims of fluorosis representing a mild cosmetic effect is their any evidence provided to the public about the possible risks?

 

 

Unthinking respect for Authority is the greatest enemy of truth

 

Albert Einstein