Fluoride In The Water

[Chinahand]

The York study only followed up longitudinal studies which take into account and adjust for other environmental sources. The affect of flouridization noted, and its lack of evidence for cancers etc, is in addition to other environmental sources of flouride. As you note fluoride is ubiquitous in the environment. Large areas of the world drink far larger amounts than the dental recommendations due to its natural level in the water they drink.

[ladyinpink]

Ok firstly i never said i knew more than anyone else and have never implied im a dental nurse therefore i must know more. I did state it was just my opinion and nothing more, and i have not even mentioned what dentists who i have worked for past or present think of the subject because its my opinion. I base my opinion on what i have read and studied i know the arguments for and against fluoride in water, as it formed part of my studies. Therefore have done some research so can i suggest you dont make assumptions, that i havent read up on this subject.

Therefore i feel your personal attack is unjustified. I am entitled to my opinion. I now know i shouldnt have mentioned what job i do as obviously it comes across to people that i think i know best, which i have never said and i dont believe i do. Grant me a little credit that i might know a bit about dental topics, seeing as i passed my qualifying exam aswell as my oral health education exam. Oh and before you come back with doesnt make you an expert, my answer is no it doesnt but im by no means in the dark about it all. Try a few dental websites, see what they say on the subject then at least you will be well informed.

[Newsbot]

Residents on the Isle of Man are to be consulted on whether the island's water supply should be fluoridated.

 

Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/6391703.stm

[Lonan3]

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?)

 

Since then they have elected Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr., Bill Clinton and George W Bush as president.

 

Is this a coincidence? I find it hard to believe.

 

I can, however, completely understand why people are uneasy about it.

 

[doodlebug]

If the argument for fluoridisation is because it will (possibly) stop a few people getting tooth decay, then why not add statins to the water? The same argument could be used - it will stop people getting high cholesterol and save the NHS millions. However, how many pro-fluoride people would agree to being forced to consume statins when they don't necessarily have high cholesterol and aren't in a high risk category?

[Ushtey]

Just to add my own two pennorth to the debate, I am definitely not in favour of mandatory flouridation of the water supply.

 

Like several others I could Google for and reference various scientific reports arguing one way or the other but I prefer to simply express my own view based on my interpretation of my research, from health professionals I have discussed it with and from personal experience. Please note this is NOT the view of the Water Authority, just my own personal view.

 

Whilst I accept that adding flouride to the water will help those who do not have access to a relatively balanced diet, in particular in developing countries or severely deprived communities, I do not see the necessity on the Island. Better education and personal healthcare would address dental decay issues far more effectively than just adding flouride to the water. I wholly agree with the suggestion that those who need the flouride most are the most unlikely to drink tap water in sufficient quantities for it to counter the amount of sugary foods they consume, or those who simply don't brush their teeth.

 

Added to this are the real risks of increasing illness due to prolonged or over-exposure to flouride for those who drink it and the greatly increased risks for those who have to administer its application at source. As a new parent I am concerned that people would not realise boiling flouridised water actually increases the relative concentration, so every thime they boil water for their children, they are increasing the levels of flouride being passed to those least able to process the chemical. Would everyone really remember to empty the kettle every time they boil it? Do we really want to waste that much water?

 

I welcome the debate, but personally I really cannot see benefits that outweigh the negatives in the Isle of Man. Flouridation as a principal is a very good thing, but only where there are no better alternatives. To my mind this would be sidestepping personal responsibility and failing to address the underlying problems.

[ballaughbiker]

OK here we go.

 

I'm in my 50s with a mouth full of very expensive metal which I'm sure is much more toxic than 1mg/litre of water. Yes, I ate the wrong foods and drunk that garbage called cola but kids do that. They don't know any better.

 

For all the people with no decay - fine. Those that have it usually suffer a lot starting with dangerous general anaesthetics before the age of 5 and leading to a lifetime of avoidable dental treatment with its attendant discomfort and expense and health risks. There is one simple NATURALLY OCCURRING compound that could rid us of new decay dental disease within 15 years - fluoride. Its been accused of:

 

being poisonous - yes it is if concentrated enough, but so is whatever vitamin/salt/food etc if given in large enough doses. One part per million (1mg/litre) cannot poison anyone.

 

mottling teeth - yes if given at least 10 times this concentration. They look horrible and they will never decay but no one is suggesting 10ppm, are they?

 

causing cancer - never proved, ever, at 1ppm. If you want to call it a drug/toxic waste etc, you are entitled. However if that's the case, its had the longest drug trials of millions of years as its naturally occurring in many parts of the British Isles. There are many examples of this but the best is North & South Shields separated by a few hundred feet of Tyne. North didn't have it and South did and there was a huge difference in tooth rot. Hardly a coincidence when you look at the rest of the country that does and doesn't have it. There is no difference in the cancer rates of North and South Shields or the other places where its naturally occurring or added. Its easy to say though if you want to frighten people and antis have exploited that in the past with fluoride, phone masts etc(yes I know, not all of them....)

 

Not stopping the cause of tooth decay - true but it massively reduces its effect

 

having enough in one tube of toothpaste to kill - who says? How do they know its not the other constituents of the paste. What double blind experiments have been done to prove this story? None I'll bet!

 

Non helping as decay is genetic - yes, it most likely is but if your genetically predisposed and you eat the rubbish most kids do, then its effects are horrible and last a lifetime. Just because you might be OK does not give you the right to deny it to those who do need it.

 

For those who say put it in kids drinks/ take tablets etc, that is better than nothing. However by the time you've sussed that you child is prone to rot, most of the enamel of adult teeth has already formed and ingestion of fluoride won't have as good an effect. It does have topical and systemic effects but the latter is the most desirable. The adult teeth start to calcify at birth and that's when you really need it floating round your system (imho). The topical effect can actually be a problem as a tooth that's started to rot can end up with a hard shell surrounding the rot.

 

So I bet you think I want it in the water? Well I don't but only on a right to chose ground and not on the apocryphal scaremongering that I've seen in anti arguments over the last 30 years. If anyone thinks that tooth rot is no longer a problem, just go and see a hospital list of frightened little children being gassed. I guarantee after the first 10 or so, one after another, you'll feel that your argument is not quite so strong. I wished it had been in my water when I was a kid or mum had been a bit more clued up about fluoride supplements.

 

 

Taking cover .......

[Pat Ayres]

Flouride in the water eh?

Better than dead dogs and spent condoms in the reservoirs I suspect.

Just drink the damn water and stop being so bloody precious.

[doodlebug]

There is one simple NATURALLY OCCURRING compound that could rid us of new decay dental disease within 15 years - fluoride. Its been accused of:

 

Yes, but what they are proposing to put in the water is not the naturally occurring fluoride. The waste product from fertiliser production is not the same thing. Also it is so toxic that it is illegal for them to dump it. The only way they can get rid of it is to tell us all it's good for us and put it in the water.

 

being poisonous - yes it is if concentrated enough, but so is whatever vitamin/salt/food etc if given in large enough doses. One part per million (1mg/litre) cannot poison anyone.

 

mottling teeth - yes if given at least 10 times this concentration. They look horrible and they will never decay but no one is suggesting 10ppm, are they?

 

But the quantity of water drunk is not regulated, so the quantities of fluoride ingested cannot be regulated. The mottling of the teeth does look horrible, and is irreversible.

 

causing cancer - never proved, ever, at 1ppm. If you want to call it a drug/toxic waste etc, you are entitled. However if that's the case, its had the longest drug trials of millions of years as its naturally occurring in many parts of the British Isles. There are many examples of this but the best is North & South Shields separated by a few hundred feet of Tyne. North didn't have it and South did and there was a huge difference in tooth rot. Hardly a coincidence when you look at the rest of the country that does and doesn't have it. There is no difference in the cancer rates of North and South Shields or the other places where its naturally occurring or added. Its easy to say though if you want to frighten people and antis have exploited that in the past with fluoride, phone masts etc(yes I know, not all of them....)

 

As already stated, natural fluoride cannot be compared to the toxic waste (and yes, it IS toxic waste) which it is proposed should be dumped in our water.

 

Not stopping the cause of tooth decay - true but it massively reduces its effect

 

having enough in one tube of toothpaste to kill - who says? How do they know its not the other constituents of the paste. What double blind experiments have been done to prove this story? None I'll bet!

 

Non helping as decay is genetic - yes, it most likely is but if your genetically predisposed and you eat the rubbish most kids do, then its effects are horrible and last a lifetime. Just because you might be OK does not give you the right to deny it to those who do need it.

 

For those who say put it in kids drinks/ take tablets etc, that is better than nothing. However by the time you've sussed that you child is prone to rot, most of the enamel of adult teeth has already formed and ingestion of fluoride won't have as good an effect. It does have topical and systemic effects but the latter is the most desirable. The adult teeth start to calcify at birth and that's when you really need it floating round your system (imho). The topical effect can actually be a problem as a tooth that's started to rot can end up with a hard shell surrounding the rot.

 

So I bet you think I want it in the water? Well I don't but only on a right to chose ground and not on the apocryphal scaremongering that I've seen in anti arguments over the last 30 years. If anyone thinks that tooth rot is no longer a problem, just go and see a hospital list of frightened little children being gassed. I guarantee after the first 10 or so, one after another, you'll feel that your argument is not quite so strong. I wished it had been in my water when I was a kid or mum had been a bit more clued up about fluoride supplements.

 

 

Taking cover .......

 

A leading pharmacologist (Dr Arvid Carlsson) would disagree with you about it being better to have it in your system. He says it will only work topically.

 

Most of western Europe has either rejected, abandoned, or forbidden the fluoridation of their water. Over 70 communities in America have voted against fluoridation. If it is so beneficial, then one has to ask "why?".

 

I agree with you - water should not be fluoridated purely because of our "right to choose". Any fluoridation should be done individually if desired.

[saveourwater]

Here is a copy of a letter that has been sent to Dr Emerson of the IOM DHSS and to IOM Newspapers. In it I have challenged Dr Emerson to provide a detailed breakdown of the exact chemical makeup of the Fluoridation agents he proposes to add to the Manx drinking water.

 

Dr Emerson assures us that these Fluoridation agents are safe, pure and manufactured to exacting British Standards so this should be a very easy thing for him to do.

 

I urge everyone to look out for his reply and if he does not make a reply to demand one from him, after all we are only asking to be told exactly what it is he intends to put in the water supply.

 

What ‘exactly’ do you intend to put in the water Dr Emerson?

 

Once again the population of the Isle of Man are being subjected to the ludicrous proposal to artificially Fluoridate the water supply.

 

Many people might think that this is a good idea because Fluoride is found in common everyday products such as toothpaste and mouthwash in the form of Sodium Fluoride. This however is NOT the same substance that the DHSS would instruct the Water Authority to add to the Manx water supply.

 

The substances advocated for artificial water Fluoridation are either Hexafluorosillicic Acid or its granulated counterpart Disodium Hexafluorosillicate.

 

Both of the above substances are recovered from the phosphate fertiliser industry as toxic waste by-products, they are ‘washed’ from the pollution scrubber chimney stacks on top of phosphate fertiliser plants which are in place ‘by-law’ to stop the highly dangerous Fluorosillic gasses escaping into the atmosphere.

 

Dr Emerson of the IOM DHSS calls these chimneys stack pollution scrubbers ‘product retrieval units’ blindly following pro-fluoridation spin.

 

Dr Emerson also says that these chemicals are ‘manufactured to order’ under ‘British Safety standards’ when in reality there is no control over the content of such a ‘product’ because every seam of phosphate rock mined is different.

 

Before any public consultation takes place we would like to lay down a challenge to Dr Emerson to provide a detailed breakdown of the exact chemical makeup of the Fluoridation agents, this should be very easy for him because as he has already told us they are manufactured to exacting British Standards.

 

Isle of Man Campaign for non-Fluoridated Tap Water

11 Parliament Street

Ramsey

Isle of Man

IM8 1AS

 

E-mail: saveourwater@manx.net

[ballaughbiker]

OK doodlebug, I respect your opinion but if the fluoride added was the same or similar as that naturally occurring, would you feel any different about it? We'll have to wait for a reply from the water authority as to the exact form of fluoride planned here before we start talking emotively about 'toxic waste'. I look forward to Dr Emerson's reply before deciding.

 

The dosage can never be strictly controlled as you say, but does that matter in the real world? If you drink half a litre a day you will get a dose of 0.5mg, if like me you drink 2 litres a day you'll get 2mg. I defy anyone to regularly (every single day) drink three times what I do. Even at 6 mg a day, there is no way all the horrible effects you allege would happen. If it did it would have been discovered long before now in naturally flouridated areas where levels can be as high as 2.5mg/litre.

 

It is interesting to note that mottling of teeth is almost unheard of even in these areas. It takes 10-15 times the recommended dosage to cause mottling, not double or treble. However, ill informed professionals wanting a quick answer to a parent wanting to know why mottling has occurred will usually shrug gallicly and say it's probably fluoride. They don't really know and just don't have a better answer. that's hardly scientific!

 

Dr Carlsson is entitled to his opinion like you but I'd like to see the scientific paper he has written on the subject and sort the wheat from the chaff. There is absolutely no doubt, none, at all, period, that fluoride has a mainly systemic effect. If you section an extracted tooth from someone who has had fluoride from birth (it will have been extracted for orthodontic or impacted wisdom teeth reasons!!) it can be proved that the concentration of fluoride in the enamel is uniform from top to bottom. Due to the extremely impervious nature of enamel, that could not have happened by topical means. This is the failing of relying on fluoride toothpaste. It only has a topical effect, unless eaten and I should not recommend that, ever. If Dr C was right, how come fluoride tablets:drops work then?? They have no topical effect unless dissolved in the mouth. They are usually just swallowed but there effect is dramatic in a rot prone person if taken regularly until age 14.

 

Whatever, I say or the no doubt eminent Dr C, one thing that can't be argued against is the documentary evidence of much reduced decay in fluoride areas. We can argue all day topical/systemic but you can't argue that teeth are as good in non fluoridated areas. Yes, dental health is getting better all the time and many, many people have not got any rot at all, even if they live in non fluoride areas. Good luck to them, I'm happy for them as they will never know the misery and cost of saving a damaged dentition. It's the thousands of kids who still have most of their baby back teeth ripped out with a General anaesthetic before the age of 6 who need it. In the 21st century, that's a scandal that could be prevented by fluoride.

 

Like I say, everyone should have a choice but it is all too easy to say anything emotive to support your case. Proveable facts are different. I could say fluoride causes baldness. It doesn't, but its easy to say and someone will believe it.

 

I support NO to fluoridation of the Island's water but not for the reasons others have come up with but discussion is healthy. Better jaw jaw than... well you know the rest.

[Chinahand]

Before any public consultation takes place we would like to lay down a challenge to Dr Emerson to provide a detailed breakdown of the exact chemical makeup of the Fluoridation agents, this should be very easy for him because as he has already told us they are manufactured to exacting British Standards.

 

2 minutes on Google: LINK

 

Sodium Hexafluorosilicate [CASRN 16893-85-9] and Fluorosilicic Acid [CASRN 16961-83-4]

 

Review of Toxicological Literature Prepared for Scott Masten, Ph.D. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Submitted by Karen E. Haneke, M.S. (Principal Investigator) Bonnie L. Carson, M.S. (Co-Principal Investigator)

 

It might surprise you saveourwater, but the Isle of Man are not exactly at the leading edge on this sort of thing. The US, the most litigious and tort sensitive area in the world, has been fluorinating its water for 60 years and over 160 million Americans drink water fluorinated with these substances - there is no systematic evidence of health risks.

 

But keep on running scare stories - its all you've got.

[Alias]

Many people might think that this is a good idea because Fluoride is found in common everyday products such as toothpaste and mouthwash in the form of Sodium Fluoride. This however is NOT the same substance that the DHSS would instruct the Water Authority to add to the Manx water supply.

 

The substances advocated for artificial water Fluoridation are either Hexafluorosillicic Acid or its granulated counterpart Disodium Hexafluorosillicate.

 

Both of the above substances are recovered from the phosphate fertiliser industry as toxic waste by-products, they are ‘washed’ from the pollution scrubber chimney stacks on top of phosphate fertiliser plants which are in place ‘by-law’ to stop the highly dangerous Fluorosillic gasses escaping into the atmosphere.

Just being a waste product from the fertiliser industry does not make the substance inherently poisonous. There has only ever been one reported death because of water fluoridation, and that was when equipment failed and led to much larger concentrations of fluoride being released into the water system.

 

How is hexafluorosilicic acid dangerous? Which chemical reaction makes it so dangerous to the human body?

[saveourwater]

Before any public consultation takes place we would like to lay down a challenge to Dr Emerson to provide a detailed breakdown of the exact chemical makeup of the Fluoridation agents, this should be very easy for him because as he has already told us they are manufactured to exacting British Standards.

 

2 minutes on Google: LINK

 

Sodium Hexafluorosilicate [CASRN 16893-85-9] and Fluorosilicic Acid [CASRN 16961-83-4]

 

Review of Toxicological Literature Prepared for Scott Masten, Ph.D. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Submitted by Karen E. Haneke, M.S. (Principal Investigator) Bonnie L. Carson, M.S. (Co-Principal Investigator)

 

It might surprise you saveourwater, but the Isle of Man are not exactly at the leading edge on this sort of thing. The US, the most litigious and tort sensitive area in the world, has been fluorinating its water for 60 years and over 160 million Americans drink water fluorinated with these substances - there is no systematic evidence of health risks.

 

But keep on running scare stories - its all you've got.

 

 

Thank you Chinahand.

 

You did read the information?

 

I know how long the US has been artificially Fluoridating a lot of their water supply and what with.

 

Scare stories? I don't think so. Dr Emerson has said that he has posted me some information relating to the Fluoridation agents so when that arrives I will let you know what it says.

 

By the way your link proves what we have been saying, the agents come from the pollution scrubber stacks atop phosphate fertiliser plants. Nobody seems to know exactly what is in them but that they do contain heavy metals and radioactive materials.

 

Don't let that scare you though because you will only be ingesting them every day for the rest of your life.

[VinnieK]

By the way your link proves what we have been saying, the agents come from the pollution scrubber stacks atop phosphate fertiliser plants. Nobody seems to know exactly what is in them but that they do contain heavy metals and radioactive materials.

 

Don't let that scare you though because you will only be ingesting them every day for the rest of your life.

 

You already ingest and inhale radioactive materials every day of your life anyway, in addition to inhaling them. Brazil nuts, for instance, typically contain Potassium 40 and Radium 226 in relatively (compared to other foods) high quantities, but you'd be more justified in worrying about nut allergies than you are radioactivity when you eat one. What's more is that most of the building materials your house is made of will typically contain quantities of uranium, thorium, and potassium (not to mention the radioactivity of the soil around it), and the highest dose of radiation your body receive will in fact be via inhalation.

 

The reason for this is that a large number of radioactive materials are abundant in nature and naturally created, so when you say something "contains radioactive materials" you are really saying nothing with regards to how dangerous that this is for human consumption. In fact, at one part per million the average person would have to sit and ingest around 70,000 litres of water in a short amount of time before they took a lethal dose. It was said earlier that consumption of water isn't regulated, and thus people could accidentally submit themselves to a dangerous amount of fluoride, but in this instance it is regulated: by the natural capacity of the human body to drink.

 

Until you start accompanying your statements with a discussion of the various concentrations relative to the safe dosage levels you're not saying much at all.

 

Also, it has to be said that taking an element from toxic waste and introducing it to water supplies is not equivalent to dumping the waste into a reservoir. Fluoride extracted from fertilizer is exactly the same as a lump of fluoride if it could just one day appear out of thin air - they don't simply scoop out a hand full and rinse it under the sink before throwing it in the water, nor does the fluoride find itself twisted by the experience and vow to take its revenge on humanity.