Fluoride In The Water

[Hermes]

Fluoridation removes the right to choose, that is the ethical argument. You have a right to refuse medication and this has been at the core of our position since we began campaigning 5 years ago.

What relevence does the right to choose have for people living in Hartlepool?

 

It is interesting that the debate around the issues of fluoridation has never been satisfactorily played out - either in courts of law, political or public debate. That some areas in Britain and Ireland have chosen fluoridation, and used the argument that it is not a medicine to support this is a case in point. People have laboured the point in saying that it is an essential nutrient for dental health, but this is not in fact the case - why is there not a recognised fluoride deficiency syndrome characterised by dental caries?

As it stands in medical law everywhere, medications are administered by consent of an individual. To not have that consent means that a statutory assault has occured. Fluoridation of tapwater is a therapeutic intervention upon an individual with a medicine.

 

Fluoridation removes the right to choose, that is the ethical argument. You have a right to refuse medication and this has been at the core of our position since we began campaigning 5 years ago.

Well you have been pretty poor at getting your core position across as all I have taken from you personally on this web site is that you are scaremongering sensationalist without the either the integrity or intelligence, I am not sure which it is, to put forward a genuine fair anti fluoridation position that might stand up to a moments scrutiny.

 

As I have said before I was an anti, my position I think reflected that of Ballaugh Biker, in that I believe that it is perfectly safe to Fluoridate water as proposed but that there are probably better ways of getting kids to take fluoride than adding it to water. I am generally for the least aditions to water as possible except to make it safe to drink etc.

 

Your stance has driven me from that as I have an inbuilt loathing of pressure groups such as yourselves who cherry pick and mis represent science and facts to scaremonger. I am now a stauch pro fluoridation individual not because I am a strong proponent of fluoridation but I believe that it is bad for society if the tactics adopted by single issue scaremongering pressuregroups such as yourselves are seen as winning the day

 

Fair points there, Lost Login, but I also have to agree with Camembert's comments about cherrypicking scientific data applying to both camps. I'm unsure why you profess to have converted from the rational position of self-determination to one of supporting imposition of fluoride on those who do not want it, based solely on a loathing of pressure group behaviour. It doesn't make sense!

 

We haven't at any time had a fair, frank and rational argument from either the government or the anti's. People have succeeded in doing the bad thing: Polarising the debate using a combination of misinformation and personal loathing, either deliberately or unintentionally. Had the officials and health professionals in the government acquitted themselves with scientific rigor, professional values and a willingness to conduct a sound open public debate then we would not be in this position. It appears that they have conducted a publicity campaign based on an alarming misapprehension/misrepresentation of certain scientific data, and a deliberate ofuscation of the causes of tooth decay. You can't be too quick to blame Saveourwater, as a private citizen and honest believer in his cause, for the fact that he has been forced to fight at the level of his opponent!

[Chinahand]

Hermes I think you are missing my point about Hartlepool - the water in the area is naturally fluorinated. You have no choice whatsoever about drinking fluoride if you live there - no bureaucrat or whatever choose to fluoridate it, the water is naturally that way.

 

Why should water standards for fluoride ions be different whether they are naturally or artificially put into that water? To me that is a nonsensical standard - an ion is an ion.

 

Before people start screaming about fluorosilicates etc - yes there have to be standards for cat-ions as well, but that issue evades the primary issue - or are people saying they aren't concerned about fluoride, but the cat-ions associated with it?

[Doric]

When I cleaned oil rigs I lived in Aberdeen and tghere the natural background radiation from all the granite buildings is very very high(the worlds most radoactive city some say). Maybe then radiation is ok and we can all over UK go to the standards of Aberdeen.

 

I didnt notice much difference in people from aberdeen such as more ears than normal but they call it heavy and not bitter but maybe that is a nothing to do with it. Plus I don't want to have to listen to bagpipes all day.

 

The point is, I don't want Mr Brown and his bank manager and shopkeeper pals deciding to put stuff in my water.

[jimbms]

Chinahand NO you are missing the point, Harlepool may be naturaly fluorinated and people have little choice to live there or move, but that is the point it is not artificialy imposed upon them and if you check fully you will find steps are being made to reduce the amount in the water because of a high incidence flourosis (mmm wait a minute isn't flouride supposed to be harmless) as I have stated before forced medication is both illegal and immoral as hopefully the 4 ongoing legal cases may prove.

Doric ah yes thiose where the days a BAFF out to sunburgh then on to the Brent the long haul out to the Fulmar the wonderful food on the Thistle mates lost on the Piper (let us not forget their murder by the oil companies) and needing a tranlator in Aberdeen.

[manxiememe]

Whatever is decided, right or wrong (if there is a right or wrong) NOBODY IS GOING TO DIE

 

I'd rather die of old age than young with bone cancer. Or worse, my kids die of it!!

 

I don't care about the risks of fluorosis, if that was the only negative factor then I would be pro-fluoridation.

 

Why have perfect teeth if the fluoride is going to possibly damage your bones, etc?

[manxiememe]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=73...mp;q=&hl=en

[camembert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVxGPiqvDOk

[Chinahand]

Chinahand NO you are missing the point, Harlepool may be naturaly fluorinated and people have little choice to live there or move, but that is the point it is not artificialy imposed upon them and if you check fully you will find steps are being made to reduce the amount in the water because of a high incidence flourosis (mmm wait a minute isn't flouride supposed to be harmless) as I have stated before forced medication is both illegal and immoral as hopefully the 4 ongoing legal cases may prove.

Jimbms, or anyone else - what 4 court cases?

Plus can you give any details on the steps to reduce the amount of fluoride - where and to what level?

I still find it an odd argument about natural fluoride- the fluoride levels in Hartlepool are imposed on the people of Hartlepool by the standards set by water quality bodies. Water companies have a statutory duty to control contaminents and it is a deliberate decision to set contanimants at certain levels. The people of Hartlepool's water quality is as much a deliberate choice as those of artificially fluorinated Birmingham.

[manxiememe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVxGPiqvDOk

 

LOL

[manxy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVxGPiqvDOk

 

LOL

Brilliant Couldn't stop giggling for ages

[Doric]

Doric ah yes thiose where the days a BAFF out to sunburgh then on to the Brent the long haul out to the Fulmar the wonderful food on the Thistle mates lost on the Piper (let us not forget their murder by the oil companies) and needing a tranlator in Aberdeen.

 

They only let me go offshore once. But you know what I mean about naturally occurring radiation in Aberdeen, doesn't mean it is ok. Same as naturally occurring sulphurs in some places and thats not good. Lots of thing are natural but I would prefer not to have some of it thank you.

(I know sumburgh quite well and was in aberdeen for Piper Alpha.)

 

This water thing just seems to be a way that thos in power on the Isle of Man can flex their might even more. I think we should wait for the Tynwald vote and see who are the buffoons and then kick 'em out next election, if not sooner. Maybe even have a vote of no confidence in them which I don't think has been done on the isle of man before although maybe even more important things to use that particular voter for, or maybe it should be used more often..

 

We should all shut up now and let them in power vote on this one after a debate. I want to know who's who. Tony won't allow them a free vote, if there even is such a thing on the island, especially as it might mean them losing a lot of wonga if they vote against Eddie the Banker. So all the ministers must be for it and then some arse lickersd (please excuse the expression) who wannabe ministers one day.

 

I reckon I know who you are lol !

 

Probably tghe first time I have used lol but ytou know what I mean.

[Doric]

I was just about to agree with the last post then I realised I wrote it

[Chinahand]

So, chinahand what we have obtained from you thus far?

You claim an interest in the integrity of science and do not show it. You cherry pick data, dismiss questions, omit unfavourable facts and make misleading statements.

 

Incandesent, I have to admit I really debated whether to bother to reply to your post. This is becoming a pretty useless debate of the deaf. As people have pointed out it looks like for every claim someone can put up a counterclaim. I don’t actually believe that is true and as I read and research I still feel that the objective science on fluoride is well established and robust. One point, prior to this very thread starting I knew almost nothing about fluoridation, though I have since discovered I’ve drunk it for many years in Seattle, and Hong Kong.

 

Due to a bizarre set of circumstances (partially involving pretty girls!), I’ve spent a reasonable portion of my life living around academic researchers – mostly involved in environmental science, microbiology, zoology, medicine and biochemistry.

 

As a result I got used to discussions about research problems, critiquing scientific papers etc. I was fascinated by their work and life style – very different from my 9 to 5 grind - and regularly would end up at talks and public lectures my friends were involved in – partly out of interest and partly for the beers afterwards!

 

In my work I was initially involved in engineering research and development and regularly met with people involved in drafting and implementing statutory engineering standards and later I did a master’s degree in social science and was drawn into the more hazy world of doing research on such multivariate things as political policy, development and economics.

 

Academic research is a fascinating thing – it is done by intensely human people, full of their flaws – and boy did some of my friends have some interesting character flaws (as most of us do!). Research is often mistaken, but science has a hugely impressive ability to identify and correct problems.

 

Why – because it is based around critiquing other people’s work – someone publishes a paper and the researchers next door literally attempt to rip it to bits. Papers are full of phrases like “A’s research indicated that B was caused by such and such an event – however in obtaining this result they failed to consider X and Y and Z – when these are taken into account … etc”

 

As a result of this I have a great faith in mainstream science. I am often amazed by the depth of modern research, the huge amalgamation of knowledge that is involved – literally thousands of rival researchers who through that rivalry create something unified.

 

Paradigm shifts are becoming more and more difficult to achieve in science – simply because they have to overcome so much detail. That doesn't mean its impossible, and as I've said fluoride science is an active field with lots of work ongoing. For anyone to want to overturn fluoridation they have to do the work to prove it - and that simply has not been done.

 

I find this a very strange debate – the anti’s are consistently saying I have to respond to their claims, or investigate, or interpret. I disagree and I don’t think that is what I have done in my posts. I’ve gone to the expert bodies – the World Health Organization, the British Medical Journal, the Medical Research Council, the Centre for Reviews and Disemination, the National Center for Biotechnology Information, the Center for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, etc etc etc and looked at their reports and the scientific papers involved. I find a vibrant area of science, and one which finds the advantages of fluoridation vastly outweigh any disadvantages.

[Chinahand]

Your recent comments regarding the WHO are misleading. You have never answered the important point raised by the WHO concerning the assessment of the background fluoride levels already existing within the environment, so I’ll repeat it for your ease of reference.

 

Incandesent tells me I should go and read what the WHO says- well I have, multiple times. In doing so I really wonder if Incandesent has actually read, rather than cherry picked the reports he recommends.

 

 

Here is what the report he linked to concludes:

Fluoride in Drinking-water

 

Fluoride may be an essential element for animals and humans. For humans, however, the essentiality has not been demonstrated unequivocally, and no data indicating the minimum nutritional requirement are available. To produce signs of acute fluoride intoxication, minimum oral doses of at least 1 mg of fluoride per kg of body weight were required (Janssen et al., 1988).

 

There is no evidence to suggest that the guideline value of 1.5 mg/litre set in 1984 and reaffirmed in 1993 needs to be revised. Concentrations above this value carry an increasing risk of dental fluorosis, and much higher concentrations lead to skeletal fluorosis. The value is higher than that recommended for artificial fluoridation of water supplies, which is usually 0.5–1.0 mg/litre (Murray, 1986). In setting national standards or local guidelines for fluoride or in evaluating the possible health consequences of exposure to fluoride, it is essential to consider the intake of water by the population of interest and the intake of fluoride from other sources (e.g., from food and air). Where the intakes are likely to approach, or be greater than, 6 mg/day, it would be appropriate to consider setting a standard or local

guideline at a concentration lower than 1.5 mg/litre.

 

Incandesent makes a lot of play about the WHO – ok. Question: if the WHO came and did an audit of the Island and said that fluoridation within its guideline levels of between 0.5 and 1.0 ppm was ok would you accept it?

 

If not why are you cherry picking WHO statements?

 

The WHO report says there is no evidence that its guidance needs to be revised and that 1.5 ppm is an acceptable upper limit in potable water, while artificial fluoridation should be between 0.5-1.0 ppm. All this fits perfectly well with what the IOM is wanting to do.

 

Now Incandesent et al make a huge fuss that the expert brought in to advise on fluoridation says its not important to measure fluoride intake on the island. Now I am not going to defend how the case for fluoridation has been put – to be blunt its been done badly and has allowed the anti-mob to make it look like there are lots of unresolved pressing issues. But the simple fact is that the Isle of Man is not some unique unknown place where fluoride intake is so uncertain it needs to be investigated in detail.

 

We are a pretty bog standard British Island community. The idea that we are significantly different from Dublin, Birmingham, Hartlepool, or even Naples is just a distortion.

 

Now what is the science on fluoride intake in communities comparable with the Isle of Man, and how do these levels fit in with the the limits science has put on fluoride intake?

 

Fluoride is pretty ubiquitous in the environment – it is in tea, foods, the water, and, in areas suffering pollution, the air. I am not at all surprised that the WHO advices Water/Medical Authorities to be knowledgeable of the local fluoride environment before setting fluoridation levels. One important factor is how hot the country is as people simply drink more water when its hot – so as the WHO says its important to consider the intake of water.

 

This paper measures Fluoride intake in Children in both Fluorinated and un-fluorinated areas of the North East of England.

 

It found:

 

Mean fluoride intake from diet and toothpaste ranged from 0.031 (+/-0.025) mg/kg body weight (bw)/day for the low-fluoride area to 0.038 (+/-0.038) and 0.047(+/-0.008) mg/kg bw/day for sub-optimally and optimally fluoridated areas respectively.

 

So when you include fluoride in the water, food and toothpaste Children in fluorinated areas had an intake between 0.039 and 0.055 mg/kg.

 

How dangerous is that - well this paper from Nature, examining how Tiawanese tea naturally contains fluoride and how this can affect fluoride intake, gives a nice summary of the safety levels for fluoride.

 

The probable toxic dose (PTD), defined as the dose of ingested fluoride that would trigger immediate therapeutic intervention and hospitalization because of the likelihood of serious toxic consequences, is considered to be 5 mg/kg (Whitford, 1987). The reference dose (RfD) of fluoride for not having objectionable dental fluorosis is 6x10-2 mg/kg/day (USEPA, 1989).

 

If you go to the US Environmental Protection Agency site they give even more detail -

 

The No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) is 0.06mg/kg.

 

While the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) is 0.10 mg/kg.

 

The Adverse Effect is the appearance of moderate fluorosis and nothing more.

 

In the children measured in the North East the upper statistical bounds were below the NOAEL and had a margin of safety of over 80% to the LOAEL.

 

Also what is important to realize is that of course in a huge population some kids will take in more fluoride than that - but the biggest risk factor isn't fluoride in the water - you would have to drink gallons of the stuff - but swallowing toothpaste.

 

If kids swallow toothpaste it massively increases their risk of getting fluorosis whether they live in a fluorinated area or not.

 

Here is another study, this time from New Zealand - a slightly less comparable place than the North East of England, but still pretty similar to the IOM.

 

Here they did a longitudinal study over a year analysing fluoride intake.

 

What did they find?

 

The mean fluoride intake from foods and drinks and toothpastes in the low-fluoride areas was 0.027 +/- 0.012 mg/kg body weight (0.49 +/- 0.25 mg/day) and in the fluoridated areas was 0.036 +/- 0.015 mg/kg body weight (0.68 +/- 0.27 mg/day).

 

So in fluorinated areas children are consuming between 0.021 and 0.051 mg/kg. These figures are very comparable with the North East of England results and again imply there is little risk.

 

Time and time again I've banged on that without a proper cost benefit analysis this argument will go no where. Those analyses have been done and show fluoridation is a benefit overall. At 1.0 ppm fluorosis is the only observed side effect and at such a level it is swamped by approximately 100 fold by the benefits in reduced cavities.

 

The evidence shows that in areas with comparable living conditions to the Island fluoride intake is not a cause of concern and entirely fits in with the WHO guidelines.

 

To claim that a proposal to fluorinate Manx water at between 0.5 and 1.0 ppm would be against WHO advice is to be disengenuous. Emerson could have put his case better, but that does not change the fact that this is a smoke screen put up by the antis with no basis in science.

[Chinahand]

You still do not accept the fact that it is to more highly qualified people than you that were responsible for the production of the York Review which did not find any Grade A reliable evidence to support your endless propaganda in favour of fluoridation.

 

Incandesent I have a similar question to you on the York Review to the question I had about the WHO. Do you accept the York Reviews conclusions that Fluoridation reduces cavities by on average 2.25 DMFT, that the benefits are still apparant even with increased fluoride use else where, that fluorosis of an aesthetic concern will increase by on average 4.5 percentage points when water is fluoridated, and that there is no evidence of other ill effects.

 

Over the quality of the research I feel you are playing a doulble game - the York Review said studies of level A or level B were of high enough quality to be included. The researchers would obviously would like to use the highest level of research necessary, but the level B studies used were of sufficient quality to make the conclusions I've noted.

 

My understanding is that a level A study is a randomized, double blind, before-and-after test following an individual from the pre to post exposure to fluoride or what ever. These types of tests are massively expensive and are rarely done. It is not that surprising that no such studies have been done for fluoride, especially when natural populations have been drinking the stuff since the year dot. An analogy is that you are allowed to use a drug for problem B with much less, I seem to remember close to zero testing, if it has been safety tested earlier for problem A.

 

Level B studies are mainly before and after studies with matching of subjects on as many indicators as possible with control subjects. The measurement of the effects often is randomized and blind, but single subjects are not tracked. Quite a few studies have been done on fluoride using this. These are what the York report mainly used - 24 of them if I remember rightly - though some of these might have slightly different methodologies which still allow them to be classed as level B - I am not a medical researcher and don't have full details - google failed me when I tried to learn more!!!!

 

Everything I've read coming from reputable sources - I admit the caviat, but the scaremongering of the anti-mob is frightening - says there is no evidence of risk at levels to worry us - what the actual levels are we don't know but science is continuing to find out. That may be dissatisfying, but is good enough for me that the risks are on a par with the countless other risks we accept without concern - burnt meat, eating bacon, using mobile phones etc etc.