Fluoride In The Water

[ballaughbiker]

I come to this site with no pre conceived notions

Bullshit

[Chinahand]

Not sure if I've got the energy to go through Incandescent's entire post - no doubt he'll accuse me of being unethical.

 

I was googling the CDC and fluorosis and got this site:

 

Interesting point which I hadn't realized before:

Who is at risk for enamel fluorosis?

 

Only children 8 years old and younger are at risk, because this is the time when permanent teeth are developing under the gums.

Once the teeth erupt (emerge through the gums), they are no longer at risk for fluorosis.

Adults, adolescents, and children older than 8 years cannot develop enamel fluorosis.

 

There is then a link to research undertaken by CDC scientists on Water Fluoridation etc - 13 papers are listed all published in the last 10 years and most after the York Report - so evidence of current efforts.

 

There is also research on going in fluorosis including this 2002 study looking at aesthetics which confirms my speculations about Deans Index vrs Aesthetic fluorosis.

 

CONCLUSION: We found that approximately 2% of US schoolchildren may experience perceived esthetic problems which could be attributed to the currently recommended levels of fluoride in drinking water. The findings further suggest that both estimates of fluorosis prevalence and risk of fluorosis attributable to fluoridation will be higher when calculated with an index applied to the entire dentition. Data were unavailable for fluoridated toothpaste and diluted formula consumption, thus the risk of fluorosis attributable to fluoridation may be overestimated if consumption was higher in fluoridated areas. The risk of perceived esthetic problems attributable to fluoridation must be weighed against its lifetime benefits and the associated costs of alternative solutions such as educating parents about appropriate toothpaste use and lowering the fluoride content of children's toothpaste.

 

Of course Saveourwater, Incandescent et al will scream that this is biased, surpressed, etc the output of the enemy which brave Dr Connett is sueing for ethics violations etc. But for me it shows the CDC undertaking large scale research (1839 children) to attempt to quantify the issues. It discusses costs and benefits - exactly the issues I have been raising.

[ballaughbiker]

pm received from SOW a few minutes ago "Nazis, bullshit! Can't you make some more constructive replies?"

Well of course I could but it would be pointless. Round and round we go. The same chanting matra just flows out regardless and when points are challenged there are no real answers to those points just the same chanting mantra.

 

Well done you've won! I've been hammered in submission but it don't make all you say true. 10% might be but a whopping 90% is bollox (imo) Whilst I totally agree with the antis that have posted on a 'right to chose' basis, I feel you have skilfully manipulated cherry picked information from some dubious sources and used unreasonable scare tactics to get your message across. Yes it will probably work so job done. Congratulations. If you had kept to the right to chose remit I would have been with you all the way but I trust the population of the island will not be convinced by your mantra. Hammered into submission yes, but not convinced. However you will no doubt get the result you want and I suppose that's all that matters.

 

For a final time I ask this question which you have never answered adequately: Why would health professionals and respected scientific and government institutions all over the world want to poison us all as you keep repeating? On yes I forgot, you did reply once to the effect that it was a way to get rid of toxic waste (though our kidneys?)! With that mindset it is pointless continuing with any discussion.

 

PS You need better briefing, my name is not John.......

[caprineus]

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 ??

 

My wife was phoned this morning and asked if she would answer some questions on a health survey for the DHSS. The first question was her age and she was told that the caller was not sure if they were surveying that age group, but they would ring back.

Somebody else rang this evening. On questioning by my wife he revealed that it was a survey on fluoridation and that they were only surveying the 16 to 34 age group.

 

This is a most extraordinary development as fluoridation is a matter of mass medication. Are those of us older than 35 not to be consulted? If so, I consider the results of such a survey to be completely invalid and it should be terminated immediately.

[saveourwater]

We are receiving some very interesting feedback on the telephone poll.

 

People who have been contacted have said that there is an ‘introduction’ to the issue before the questions take place. I guess depending on the speed that the interviewer talks this lasts between 1 and 2 minutes. The introduction is along the lines that fluoride is great and is supported by this agency and that agency etc.

 

Then the following questions are asked: -

 

Q1. Do you think tooth decay rates on the Isle of Man are above the average UK level, below it, or about the same?

Q2. In fact tooth decay levels on the Isle of Man are considerably higher than the average UK level. In many developed countries, and in some parts of the UK, fluoride is added to the water supply to reduce the levels of tooth decay. Would you favour or oppose fluoride being added to the water in the Isle of Man?

Q3. Record respondent gender.

Q4. What was your age last birthday?

Q5. Are there any children under 16 living in your household?

 

These questions were made available to the media and Quintin Gill MHK (as draft questions) before the poll took place and we did get a chance to query them. We of course lodged our complaints that they were biased and leading and Dr Emerson then had this message for us after giving our feedback to GNK/NOP (the poll company) : -

 

“They (GNK/NOP) as an expert polling company, have also asked that I do not in future make the wording of the questions public because research evidence points to bias being created in public responses if the questions are debated before a poll takes place.”

 

We thought that was priceless coming from a man who sent a full colour, double sided A3 leaflet on pro fluoridation propaganda to every home on the Island a week or so before the poll – if that is not creating bias then what is?

 

So instead of making the draft questions less biased it would appear that what they have decided to do instead is to add this pro-fluoridation introduction.

 

Perhaps we should conduct our own poll, these are our draft questions, introduction and ending : -

 

Fluoride is a cumulative protoplasmic poison. The toxicity of fluoride lies between lead and arsenic. Fluoride is found in many common products such as toothpaste, mouthwash, rat poison and nerve gas. In the US if you swallow more than a pea sized amount of fluoride toothpaste you are advised to call a ‘poison control centre’ this is about the same amount of fluoride that would be found in an 8oz glass of water – however the fluoride in the toothpaste would be pharmaceutical grade Sodium Fluoride whereas the fluoride in your water supply would be Hexafluorosillicic Acid that has been captured from the pollution scrubber stacks on top of phosphate fertiliser factories.

 

Q1. Do you support the introduction of fluoride into the water supply if it entails having a bloody big tanker truck full of highly dangerous toxic shit that can eat through steel and concrete trundling past your home / child’s school / church / pub / health care facility / shops etc on a regular basis?

 

Q2. Do you support the introduction of fluoride into the water supply if it makes your children’s / grandchildren’s teeth fashionably brown or mottled and leads to the need for highly expensive and otherwise unnecessary treatment that you will have to pay for out of your own pocket?

 

Q3. Do you support the introduction of fluoride into the water supply and stuff the consequences for livestock – particularly horses and stuff what that nice Minister Gawne says, after all what does he know about livestock and farming and stuff like that, eh?

 

Thank you for your time, as you do not know who we are we don’t want to know if there are any young children in your house, but if you do have children then remember that the best way to avoid cavities is to give them a balanced diet and go easy on the sweets and pop and always brush their teeth twice a day with a low dose fluoride toothpaste, but make sure it is not strawberry flavour so they are less likely to swallow it.

[manshimajin]

We are receiving some very interesting feedback on the telephone poll.

 

People who have been contacted have said that there is an ‘introduction’ to the issue before the questions take place. I guess depending on the speed that the interviewer talks this lasts between 1 and 2 minutes. The introduction is along the lines that fluoride is great and is supported by this agency and that agency etc.

 

These questions were made available to the media and Quintin Gill MHK (as draft questions) before the poll took place and we did get a chance to query them. We of course lodged our complaints that they were biased and leading and Dr Emerson then had this message for us after giving our feedback to GNK/NOP (the poll company) : -

 

“They (GNK/NOP) as an expert polling company, have also asked that I do not in future make the wording of the questions public because research evidence points to bias being created in public responses if the questions are debated before a poll takes place.”

 

We thought that was priceless coming from a man who sent a full colour, double sided A3 leaflet on pro fluoridation propaganda to every home on the Island a week or so before the poll – if that is not creating bias then what is?

 

So instead of making the draft questions less biased it would appear that what they have decided to do instead is to add this pro-fluoridation introduction.

 

Perhaps we should conduct our own poll.

 

You have raised a number of concerns about 'biased' polling and I am pretty sure that many Forum members would also feel that, irrespective of our personal views, opinion polls should not be manipulated to give the answer required, or to exclude the opinions of some age groups affected.

 

I then run into a sense of frustration - we talk a lot on the Forum but what actually can be done to make the public servants adopt an approach that is genuine in testing public opinion?

 

And by genuine I think that this needs to either avoid advocating any position or alternatively putting a pro and an anti case alongside each other for people to decide for themselves. Maybe a newspaper advertisement to have in parallel The case For...The case Against...followed up by polling?

 

 

PS: In Ireland we got the Nice Treaty referendum vote wrong first time round so the politicians made us vote again to get it right!

[Polaris]

I was googling the CDC and fluorosis and got this site:

Isn't the world wide web great. I Googled 'CDC' and found this: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm from which I cherry-picked this:

 

Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries

Biologic Mechanism

Fluoride's caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral. However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children (1). These mechanisms include 1) inhibition of demineralization, 2) enhancement of remineralization, and 3) inhibition of bacterial activity in dental plaque (1).

 

References

1. Featherstone JD. Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999;27:31-40.

2. Burt BA. Influences for change in the dental health status of populations: an historical perspective. J Public Health Dent 1978;38:272-88.

3. Britten RH, Perrott GSJ. Summary of physical findings on men drafted in world war. Pub Health Rep 1941;56:41-62.

 

So, it would appear we don't need to drink fluoridated water as fluoride's effect is topical. What an achievement. Commit an act of battery on hundreds of millions of people and actual bodily harm (dental fluorosis) on a sizeable percentage and 50+ years later issue a statement which means it's all been for nowt.

[Hermes]

...Of course Saveourwater, Incandescent et al will scream that this is biased, surpressed, etc the output of the enemy which brave Dr Connett is sueing for ethics violations etc. But for me it shows the CDC undertaking large scale research (1839 children) to attempt to quantify the issues. It discusses costs and benefits - exactly the issues I have been raising.

 

Chinahand, 1839 would be considered a small sample group with a low statistical power, when you consider the population size from which it is sampled.

[Chinahand]

...Of course Saveourwater, Incandescent et al will scream that this is biased, surpressed, etc the output of the enemy which brave Dr Connett is sueing for ethics violations etc. But for me it shows the CDC undertaking large scale research (1839 children) to attempt to quantify the issues. It discusses costs and benefits - exactly the issues I have been raising.

 

Chinahand, 1839 would be considered a small sample group with a low statistical power, when you consider the population size from which it is sampled.

 

Erm - no - that is a reasonable size used in a Phase 3 medical trial - the largest trial before approval. The Association of the

British Pharmaceutical Industry Link

[Chinahand]

So, it would appear we don't need to drink fluoridated water as fluoride's effect is topical. What an achievement. Commit an act of battery on hundreds of millions of people and actual bodily harm (dental fluorosis) on a sizeable percentage and 50+ years later issue a statement which means it's all been for nowt.

I really don't get this - as science has developed we have gained a better understanding of HOW water fluoridation protects teeth.

 

Look at the Irish data - huge epidemeological level research - there is a very clear benefit in reduced caries with only very small ill effects: 180 cavitites vrs less than 4 cases of aesthetically damaging fluorosis.

 

What else would account for the differences - the researchers matched the samples by income level etc.

 

Fluoridation reduces caries - that is as close to a scientific fact as you can get in population studies.

 

The majority of people in both the fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas use fluoride toothpaste scrub their teeth with the usual frequency etc. But EVEN with regular scrubbing etc the benefits of fluoridation still improve oral health significantly in those areas that have it compared to areas that don't.

 

The research you are quoting is investigating how fluoridation improves oral health.

 

Quite definitely it isn't saying "we don't need to drink fluorinated water" - its saying when you drink fluorinated water, or guiness, or eat potatos boiled in it, or whatever it helps your teeth develop resistence to caries. That resistence comes about whether you are 4 or 40 - which wouldn't happen if it only occurred during tooth formation.

 

Look at the data - drinking fluorinated water helps reduce cavities by alot - people in non fluorinated areas of ROI have 58% more cavities than those in fluorinated areas.

 

I find it incredible that that advantage is just dismissed especially for 2% fluorosis.

[saveourwater]

You have raised a number of concerns about 'biased' polling and I am pretty sure that many Forum members would also feel that, irrespective of our personal views, opinion polls should not be manipulated to give the answer required, or to exclude the opinions of some age groups affected.

 

I then run into a sense of frustration - we talk a lot on the Forum but what actually can be done to make the public servants adopt an approach that is genuine in testing public opinion?

 

And by genuine I think that this needs to either avoid advocating any position or alternatively putting a pro and an anti case alongside each other for people to decide for themselves. Maybe a newspaper advertisement to have in parallel The case For...The case Against...followed up by polling?

 

 

PS: In Ireland we got the Nice Treaty referendum vote wrong first time round so the politicians made us vote again to get it right!

 

Very good point.

 

We did complain about the ‘draft’ poll questions, we did do this through the correct channels and through an MHK and our objections were valid.

 

The response from government? They said that they should not have told us the ‘draft’ questions in the first place, then they made them even more biased and leading by adding the pro-fluoridation introduction.

 

It would also now appear that they are selecting interviewees by age 18-35 (although I guess there could be a perfectly valid reason for this).

 

We will need to wait and see what results are published, we are told that the poll is due to finish on May 26th and that it will take 2 weeks to collate the data.

 

It is perhaps worth noting here though the results of a recent poll on Isle of Man Newspapers website (select from dropdown list) LINK: -

 

The fluoridation of the Island’s water supply is in the headlines again as the Department of Health looks to make an informed choice on the issue.

 

Result

 

19% I need more information before making my mind up

19% I agree with fluoridation

62% I strongly oppose fluoridation

 

Whilst an online newspaper poll can never be used as an official gauge the questions would have been a lot fairer if they were along these much simpler lines.

 

The poll the government have given the people of this Island is a travesty. We received a quote from MORI for a telephone poll of the same size and were quoted around £30,000 I believe the government GFK/NOP poll came in at around £5,000 so maybe it is a case of you get what you pay for?

[Mission]

My wife was phoned this morning and asked if she would answer some questions on a health survey for the DHSS. The first question was her age and she was told that the caller was not sure if they were surveying that age group, but they would ring back.

Somebody else rang this evening. On questioning by my wife he revealed that it was a survey on fluoridation and that they were only surveying the 16 to 34 age group.

 

This is a most extraordinary development as fluoridation is a matter of mass medication. Are those of us older than 35 not to be consulted? If so, I consider the results of such a survey to be completely invalid and it should be terminated immediately.

 

Just had the exact same thing, first question asked was my age. Had extreme difficulty understanding the caller due to her accent but the jist of it seemed to be I might get a call back later on.

 

Two things: I find it incredible that my opinion doesn't count because of my age, considering if the government do fluoridate the water it'll affect everyone and secondly, if you're going to conduct a telephone survery then at the very least, employ people who are able to communicate in a manner which the person on the other end of the line can understand you.

[immortalpuppet]

They are 2 separate companies calling, one is on behalf on manx health care from an 0800 number and one was the flouride thing from an 020 number (or an office on the island using a redirect system.)

 

Both got told to fuck off as i hate being cold called especially on a Sunday, i did ask where they got my number but both started bleating shit so i just hung up.

[Hermes]

...Of course Saveourwater, Incandescent et al will scream that this is biased, surpressed, etc the output of the enemy which brave Dr Connett is sueing for ethics violations etc. But for me it shows the CDC undertaking large scale research (1839 children) to attempt to quantify the issues. It discusses costs and benefits - exactly the issues I have been raising.

 

Chinahand, 1839 would be considered a small sample group with a low statistical power, when you consider the population size from which it is sampled.

 

Erm - no - that is a reasonable size used in a Phase 3 medical trial - the largest trial before approval. The Association of the

British Pharmaceutical Industry Link

 

That's all very well, but we are not talking about Phase 3 drug trials - we are talking about analysis of disease incidence/prevalence within a population. The regulation of clinical trials for new drugs is designed to strike a balance between safety and development costs, and was negotiated in part with the pharmaceutical industry. Many drugs get through trials on smaller trial cohort numbers and are withdrawn after disastrous side-effects are uncovered. Vioxx and myocardial infarctions, being a case in point.

[manshimajin]

We will need to wait and see what results are published, we are told that the poll is due to finish on May 26th and that it will take 2 weeks to collate the data.

 

I have a bias based on two issues:

 

* I do not like the idea of fixing a 'problem' that can be dealt with by individuals themselves by imposing a solution that effects everyone irrespective of whether they want it or not (in my own case I use fluoridated toothpaste)

 

* Conducting opinion polls paid for by the taxpayers that exclude a significant proportion of people based on age, and that (if comments are correct) try to prompt a particular response pattern - is patently dishonest and unprofessional - and we pay our public servants to be professional and honest.

 

If public/media comment on the survey methodology is left until after the survey results are published the results will be presented as a fait accomplis provided they support the outcome that is wanted.

 

(Edit) At that point any counter arguments will be easy for the authorities to fend off - "we undertook a comprehensive survey using a leading international survey company and the results are fully supportive of our policy...."