ladyinpink Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 To answer the question what difference it would make i would say quite a bit of difference. If children dont brush their teeth with a fluoride toothpaste then they are getting no fluoride, if the parents arnt educated about diet then they are at more risk of decay, so therefore fluoride in water would go some way in helping reach those people who need it. Im not saying fluoride in water would stop decay because it wont decay is down mainly to diet , but fluoride plays an important role in dental health in my opinion.Anyway just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 What I mean is that the sort of children who don't brush their teeth, how will they get access to this flouridated water? If parents aren't bothered about their children brushing their teeth, does this make them more likely to drink Sunny D than water? And they won't get water on their teeth from brushing them, if they don't.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartT Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I seem to remember hearing somewhere (I think it was a documentry on TV) about people having Allergenic reactions to fluoride in the water, and being forced to go into different counties to get their water as their own local authority had chosen to fluridate the water. Now on the Isle of man, how could anyone go elsewhere to get unfluoridated water?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I went fishing and piddled in the resevoir at the weekend. I worked out that it should have reached most houses by this evening - so if you are drinking a cup of tea at the moment think on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Naylor Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Well at least you had the decency not to take a dump in there Albert, good show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Just thought I would put a little personal experience to this subject. Most of you know I'm a Yank who's been here for five years now. I look after my teeth very well with brushing twice a day, flossing, going to the dentist regularly, etc. And I'm sure most of you are aware that flouride is in the water in the states and has been for a very long time (i think it was the early 60's that they started adding it?) I have never had a cavity or needed a filling my whole life. I move over here, keep my same dental hygene routine and within the first two years of living here I have three cavities and therefore needed three fillings. Is this a coincidence? I find it hard to believe. I can, however, completely understand why people are uneasy about it. The very thought of something being pumped into the water supply for everyone's consumption seems unnatural. However, it really makes a world of difference for people's dental health. Does it cause cancer? As someone stated earlier - life is carcenogenic. Levels of cancer between this part of the world and the states seem to be more or less the same so I think we need to look at the overall picture. Just my two cents That is pretty much my experience except I moved over many years ago and now have a mouthful of silver. As for drinking water, in the States water is (was) served at pretty much every meal, it still is. I was in Vermont a couple of weeks ago and in the restaurants the first thing the waiters do is bring a big glass of water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doodlebug Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 I am a dental nurse and personally i agreeb with putting fluoride in the water. I dont see there is any risk to public health, and i can see how people would benefit from it. Isle of man has a poor record for decay rates in children, and i feel that fluoride would be beneficial in helping reduce these decay rates. The fact that you are a dental nurse doesn't mean that you have any more knowledge than anybody else about fluoride, so your actual job is irrelevant. It might be an idea to actually do some research on the subject rather than just repeat the biased information you are given through work. The Centre for Disease Control now acknowledges that any benefit from fluoride is topical and not systemic - in other words it only works (if it works at all) from the outside, not from the inside. The fluoride added to water is an industrial waste by-product from the fertiliser industry, and not the same as naturally occurring fluoride. Ingested fluoride accumulates in the body and can cause fluorosis of the teeth, kidney problems, can damage the brain, accumulates in, and affects, the pineal gland, reduces thyroid activity (it actually used to be used as a thyroid suppressant for people with over-active thyroids), can cause osteoporosis among others. The children who have severe dental decay are probably those who eat a lot of sweets, don't brush their teeth often enough or correctly, are unlikely to actually drink water - they are more likely to drink cola, sunny d, and any of those other artificially coloured liquids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 And if you're really keen on flouridated water, get yourself some of this: http://www.nurserywater.com/home.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 And if you're really keen on flouridated water, get yourself some of this: http://www.nurserywater.com/home.html I Think (hope) you are joking but don't buy your kids this product, in fact don't give your babies Fluoride at all - FLUORIDE / BABIES As doodlebug has said it is now generally accepted that any percieved benefits (if any at all) come from a direct application (topical) i.e. toothpaste and swallowing would be of no benefit at all. Fluoridated water is aimed at strengthening the pre-erupted teeth in infants and small children, there is absolutley no need for the rest of the population to drink it. I believe that the IOM DHSS would be far better off targetting the minority group that has problems in brushing and diet, and introducing brushing regimes into pre-school and primary school locations. Mass medication is not the way forward and especially not with toxic waste. If they want to mass medicate then they should at the very least use a product that has been manufactured in laboratory conditions and is registered internationally as a medicine, not just scraped from the pollution stack chimneys on top of fertiliser factories (oh, sorry I mean 'product retrieval units' as the IOM DHSS call them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I am a dental nurse and personally i agreeb with putting fluoride in the water. I dont see there is any risk to public health, and i can see how people would benefit from it. Isle of man has a poor record for decay rates in children, and i feel that fluoride would be beneficial in helping reduce these decay rates. The fact that you are a dental nurse doesn't mean that you have any more knowledge than anybody else about fluoride, so your actual job is irrelevant. It might be an idea to actually do some research on the subject rather than just repeat the biased information you are given through work. The Centre for Disease Control now acknowledges that any benefit from fluoride is topical and not systemic - in other words it only works (if it works at all) from the outside, not from the inside. The fluoride added to water is an industrial waste by-product from the fertiliser industry, and not the same as naturally occurring fluoride. Ingested fluoride accumulates in the body and can cause fluorosis of the teeth, kidney problems, can damage the brain, accumulates in, and affects, the pineal gland, reduces thyroid activity (it actually used to be used as a thyroid suppressant for people with over-active thyroids), can cause osteoporosis among others. The children who have severe dental decay are probably those who eat a lot of sweets, don't brush their teeth often enough or correctly, are unlikely to actually drink water - they are more likely to drink cola, sunny d, and any of those other artificially coloured liquids. Ignoring the fact she is a dental nurse is the same as ignoring the fact the Centre for Disease Control agrees that adding flouride to water reduces cavities and dental caries and does not have significant downside risks. You can repeat your scare stories as much as you like - large scale and meta-scale reports have shown flouridization is not a general risk and does reduce cavities even when people use flouride toothpaste. Yes the benefits have reduced from a 50% increase of people with zero cavities in the first studies in the 1940s to a 15% increase today due to flouride been available from other sources such as toothpaste. But 15% is still alot. SarahC I don't get your uncertainty - enough people benefit for there to be a measurable improvement in dental health - 15% more people have no fillings etc and people on average have 2.25 fewer fillings. Obviously if people don't ever drink water they won't be helped - other ways are needed to improve there dental health, but generally there is a benefit. We live in a cost benefit world. The risks doodlebug and saveourwater are raising are of very low incidence. A similar level of risk exists from eating well done, or barbaqued meat (link). I don't see them campaigning to ban the BBQ, but they perpetuate scare stories about flouride. People have to weigh up the costs and benefits of a particular policy. doodlebug and saveourwater are exaggerating the risks - they exist but are scarcely measurable - and ignore the benefits. What a great way to conduct a policy debate and ensure the right decision is made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I have always thought that we already had fluoride in our water and that was why I had such healthy teeth!!! Just shows you eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 You can repeat your scare stories as much as you like - large scale and meta-scale reports have shown flouridization is not a general risk and does reduce cavities even when people use flouride toothpaste.Many of the reports on Fluorides effectiveness are classed as low grade or unreliable, as we have seen from Prof. Sheldon's statement. Let us not forget that he chaired the most comprehensive investigation ever into the safety and effectiveness of water Fluoridation and he could not agree with claims being made by pro-Fluoridation camps. LINK Yes the benefits have reduced from a 50% increase of people with zero cavities in the first studies in the 1940s to a 15% increase today due to flouride been available from other sources such as toothpaste. But 15% is still alot. SarahC I don't get your uncertainty - enough people benefit for there to be a measurable improvement in dental health - 15% more people have no fillings etc and people on average have 2.25 fewer fillings. Obviously if people don't ever drink water they won't be helped - other ways are needed to improve there dental health, but generally there is a benefit. Again even the 15% claim is dubious (see above LINK) due to the inferior quality of the reports available. We live in a cost benefit world.Agreed so what are the cost benefits of Water Fluoridation, a claimed but dubious reduction in caries but an undeniable increase in Fluorosis. Dental Fluorosis is a visible sign of Fluoride poisoning that is characterised by staining, mottling or 'PITTING' of the teeth - the very thing that it is supposed to prevent. Dental Fluorosis can only be treated by crowning or veneers both of which will require lifetime upkeep by your dentist so where is the cost benefit? A similar level of risk exists from eating well done, or barbaqued meat (link). I don't see them campaigning to ban the BBQ, but they perpetuate scare stories about flouride. Are you serious? IOM DHSS are not trying to install barbecues in every home on the island and then force us to eat barbecued food with every meal and drink for the rest of our lives. People have to weigh up the costs and benefits of a particular policy. doodlebug and saveourwater are exaggerating the risks - they exist but are scarcely measurable - and ignore the benefits. What a great way to conduct a policy debate and ensure the right decision is made. People are hopefully senisble enough to read the arguments from both sides, they may also choose to do some of their own research and then they can vote as they choose. I happen to think that is a great way to conduct this debate and look forward to the coming 12 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doodlebug Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 Chinahand - not everybody is going to be forced to eat barbequed meat a dozen or more times a day are they? As a vegan I would never touch the stuff at all anyway. Just like I don't want to have to drink fluoridated water. The fluoride which is proposed to be put into the water is NOT naturally occurring fluoride. It is a toxic waste by-product of the fertiliser industry. It is illegal for it to be dumped into water because it is classed as such - toxic waste. HOWEVER, if they can say it has health benefits (unproven) then they can reclassify exactly the same substance and legally put it into the water. The substance does not actually stop being a toxic waste product, but they have to get rid of it somehow don't they? Hey, why not force people to drink it and tell them it's good for them? Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I think you need to understand the concept of concentration - at certain concentrations a substance can be beneficial, at other concentrations it is neutral, and at further concentrations it is dangerous. Flouride is placed in water at 1 ppm, flouride tooth paste has a concentration of 1450 ppm. Yes eating an entire tube of toothpaste is dangerous. And if you have a industrial process producing the stuff in vaste concentrations obviously there is a hazard. But you are not comparing apples with apples. Link At the optimum fluoridation level of 1 mg/l, it would take ingesting 80 to 200 gallons of water to reach the acute toxicity level, an amount impossible to drink at any one time. The National Academy of Sciences has studied the possibility of adverse health effects from continuous consumption of fluoride over long periods of time. The Academy reported daily intake required to produce chronic toxicity after years of consumption, is 20 to 80 milligrams or more per day depending upon body weight. What the US surgeon general has to say about the issue: As noted in Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General, community water fluoridation continues to be the most cost-effective, equitable and safe means to provide protection from tooth decay in a community. For more than 50 years, small amounts of fluoride have been added to drinking water supplies in the United States where naturally-occurring fluoride levels are too low to protect teeth from decay. Over 170 million people, or 67 percent of the United States population served by public water supplies, drink water with optimal fluoride levels for preventing decay. Of the 50 largest cities in the country, 43 are fluoridated. An economic analysis has determined that in most communities, every $1 invested in fluoridation saves $38 or more in treatment costs. Fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay and improve oral health over a lifetime, for both children and adults. Keep up the scare stories if you want, but you need to do some science if you are going to demonstrate fluorodizing the IOM's water will have more risks than benefits. This in the end becomes a bit like nimbyism - drinking water is only a small fraction of water usage - if you don't want to drink the Ushtey's water there are alternatives - how should a politician view this issue - at the level of community benefits - with absenters opting out - or at an individual level with opponents holding a veto power? These issues are complex and I find the two main opponents of flouridization are not presenting an unbiased analysis. The US surgeon general, the CDC etc have a direct interest in being unbiased cos they could be sued by either parties if they are wrong - plus they uphold objective science above subjective opinion ... but heck its an internet forum so crack on. edited: spelling and clarification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 This in the end becomes a bit like nimbyism - drinking water is only a small fraction of water usage - if you don't want to drink the Ushtey's water there are alternatives - how should a politician view this issue - at the level of community benefits - with absenters opting out - or at an individual level with opponents holding a veto power? You could not be more wrong. Fair enough if you don't want to drink the water then you do have that choice. But what about total exposure to Fluorides i.e. from the atmosphere, ciggarette smoke, cooking utensils containing Teflon, canned fish such as tuna and many other products. Let alone your own cooking what should you boil or steam your veggies in - bottled water? What about dermal absorption from showering and bathing? How much Fluoride would we be ingesting each day if this went ahead, what about Fluorides in local produce bread and beer etc once the water is Fluoridated? Again many of the opinions held in the scientific community are based on biased, outdated and unreliable studies that were directly funded by pro-Fluoridation organisations. If you want science then visit this site where you will find all the science you could ever wish for, including a growing list of scientists, dentists and doctors and ex-pro-fluoridationists who are all against water Fluoridation - LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.