Fluoride In The Water

[Lonan3]

I'm not a scientist. As I've said before long, scientific words and terminologies simply make me blink and feel somewhat ignorant.

In this respect, I suspect that I'm much the same as the average person.

When I turn the tap on - water comes out. I assume that it's relatively pure - that it's been filtered to remove some of the rubbish that gets into our reservoirs such as grit, weeds and dead canoeists - and that, therefore, it's fit to drink.

Is anything else added to what is, after all, a perfectly natural substance? I'm asking that as an honest question - I really don't know the answer and I hope that the answer is 'no.'

Somehow, the idea of adding something to our drinking water - even if it is meant to be of general benefit to our health etc., doesn't appeal to me. There are just too many example of 'experts' getting it wrong for me to feel comfortable with the notion that it's all for our own good.

[saveourwater]

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.

 

 

Dr Emerson however is telling the Manx people that the Fluoride he intends to put in the water is a pure product, manufactured to order under exacting British Standards. This is 'slightly' different from the reality that it is untreated toxic waste with varying levels of harmful contaminents that nobody has any control over, how could they? Every seam of rock mined is different containing varying amounts of the large number of radioactive materials that are abundent in nature.

 

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.

 

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.

 

That is why we have asked Dr Emerson to provide a detailed breakdown of the substances he intends to drip feed into the Manx water supply. Once we know exactly how much Fluoride, Lead, Arsenic, Sillicate, Uranium, Polonium + whatever else is in there is in each batch of the stuff we will all know what we are talking about won't we.

 

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.

 

Not so. Fluoride is present already in many forms and if water is Fluoridated then it is much more realistic to expect that people will exceed stated 'safe' levels each day.

 

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.

 

The point is that it is not 'just Fluoride' that will be going into our water and it is not 'taking an element from toxic waste' it is the entire toxic waste being captured, bottled up and then diluted into the water but hey if you think that is OK then that is fine, good for you.

[Chinahand]

FFS saveourwater - for a suposed lobbiest on this subject you are surprisingly ignorant - don't know about the toxological studies on hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium hexafluorosilicate - don't know about European, US and British Standards.

 

The toxology results show that these compounds are not a health issue at anything like the levels prevelent in tap water - plus it hydrolizes to Hydrogen Ions, Silica and Flouride when it is added to water - so it is impossible to be exposed to these substances when you drink tap water - they break down when it is added to water.

 

Please understand that Engineering Standards are an important part of the controls and standardization used in the Water industry to ensure quality. Go and read up about BS ENs 12174, and 12175. Guess what Dr Emerson isn't talking out of his arse.

 

I'll even give you a link on them: link . It'll tell you about the British Standards plus the control of contaminants, maximum levels, safety levels etc etc. Surprise surprise the technical people in the Water Industry are aware of the need to control contaminants and ensure water quality. They have technical standards and have been monitoring and improving them over the last 60 or so years as the science of fluoridation has been advanced.

 

Why don't you go and find scare stroies about how the aerodynamics of aircraft wings aren't fully understood - this is true - that turbulance and shear on wings has not been fully developed into an all encompassing theory. You'll find cranks who go on about bumble bees, and you'll find respectable scientific papers which talk about the fact wind shear is not understood and the dangers of this for civil aviation. But guess what - flying is safe. The issues surrounding Fluoridation are totally analogous to this.

 

If you did the research you'll find you don't need to bug poor Dr Emerson.

[ballaughbiker]

Now then Saveourwater, if fluoride is present in so many forms, how come my teeth are so bad then? Are the places where it's naturally occurring at say 1mg/litre not subject to these other forms too? Why are the people who live in these areas not suffering all the ills that we are being frightened by here?

 

What forms are these apart from the obvious toothpaste which doesn't do a great deal unless eaten from birth (don't try this at home)?

[saveourwater]

FFS saveourwater - for a suposed lobbiest on this subject you are surprisingly ignorant - don't know about the toxological studies on hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium hexafluorosilicate - don't know about European, US and British Standards.

 

The toxology results show that these compounds are not a health issue at anything like the levels prevelent in tap water - plus it hydrolizes to Hydrogen Ions, Silica and Flouride when it is added to water - so it is impossible to be exposed to these substances when you drink tap water - they break down when it is added to water.

 

Please understand that Engineering Standards are an important part of the controls and standardization used in the Water industry to ensure quality. Go and read up about BS ENs 12174, and 12175. Guess what Dr Emerson isn't talking out of his arse.

 

I'll even give you a link on them: link . It'll tell you about the British Standards plus the control of contaminants, maximum levels, safety levels etc etc. Surprise surprise the technical people in the Water Industry are aware of the need to control contaminants and ensure water quality. They have technical standards and have been monitoring and improving them over the last 60 or so years as the science of fluoridation has been advanced.

 

Why don't you go and find scare stroies about how the aerodynamics of aircraft wings aren't fully understood - this is true - that turbulance and shear on wings has not been fully developed into an all encompassing theory. You'll find cranks who go on about bumble bees, and you'll find respectable scientific papers which talk about the fact wind shear is not understood and the dangers of this for civil aviation. But guess what - flying is safe. The issues surrounding Fluoridation are totally analogous to this.

 

If you did the research you'll find you don't need to bug poor Dr Emerson.

 

 

I already have information on the BS EN 'standards' thanks.

 

What I want Dr Emerson to do is to be open and honest about the Fluoridation agents.

 

His spin that the agents used are pure and manuafctured to order is just that, spin.

 

When he confirms that they are untreated toxic waste and that they do contain contaminents such as Lead, Arsenic and radioactive materials (as we have stated all along) then at least the Manx people will know what is going to be put into the water supply.

 

Everybody seems to think that because these substances contain a little bit of Lead, and a little bit of Arsenic, and some radioactive materials, oh and that yes they do actually come untreated from fertiliser plants we don't have to worry about them.

 

We don't have to worry because they are going to be so diluted that they could never possibly have an adverse effect on our health only a positive one.

 

Well I am sorry poor Dr Emerson but I am going to bug you on this, and the first point is be honest about what you intend to put in our water and tell us exactly what it is, what it contains and where it comes from.

[Mission]

Why don't you go and find scare stroies about how the aerodynamics of aircraft wings aren't fully understood - this is true - that turbulance and shear on wings has not been fully developed into an all encompassing theory. You'll find cranks who go on about bumble bees, and you'll find respectable scientific papers which talk about the fact wind shear is not understood and the dangers of this for civil aviation. But guess what - flying is safe. The issues surrounding Fluoridation are totally analogous to this.

 

Jesus H. Christ on a bike, they're not planning on putting aeroplanes in the water too are they? The odd dead bee I could cope with but aeroplanes - no way José!

 

[Celt]

I listened to the guy on Manx Radio today and was supprised that he only spoke about how this effect was based on humans.

 

He, and I agree, stated that most people don't drink tap water in it's straight form. Other people mentioned this as well.

 

Most kids , including mine, drink tap water with some sort of cordial. Sugar free of course.

 

However, as we have the choice as to whether we drink it or not, what about Livestock.

 

We give tap water to, Dogs, Cats, Birds, Cows, Pigs, Sheep, Goats and even Roland the Rat !!!!

 

Have they done studies to see how that effects the animals or the food chain?

 

I doubt it.

[sarahc]

If you're giving your children sugar free drinks, check to see if they've got aspartame. If so, bin them.

This is for another thread no doubt.

[saveourwater]

US LINK

[ballaughbiker]

Thanks Saveourwater for that link. I listened to it in full and its just like all the other scare stories. No proof or scientific study resulting in a reasoned scientific conclusion.

 

You'll remember that I'm against water fluoridation on one ground only - a person's right to choose. I've been listening to anti fluoride arguments since the 70s when I was a student in Bristol when they were considering adding fluoride to the water (they didn't). Its very easy to come up with any old shite that might sound half reasonable eg my previous post about it causing baldness. Keep saying it over and over again for thirty years and some back yard smalltown TV station in the States will claim it as fact or something else just as daft! It can't be absolutely disproved at that particular time, so might it be true??? Oh well we'd better not add it just in case. It never will be proven fact until proper studies have been completed and a scientific paper written that can be examined and dissected by people with a scientific education.

 

Yes it's a poison - you've got to regularly drink about 10 times the normal consumption for any ill effects to occur. Its impossible for anyone to even approach this intake by drinking the water. Yes,if you ate a whole tube of toothpaste that's different but would that be reasonably expected behaviour? Its about as reasonable as drinking a bottle of bleach but I'm sure some nutter has done it in the past. Hardly proves anything though does it?

 

Mass medication - hmmm possibly, if it were a drug. It's naturally occurring in parts of the UK and has been since time was, so I could argue (just as unreasonably as some of the comments here) that its missing from the IOM water and should be added. Utter bollocks of course but just look at some of the posts here for similarly ridiculous statements. If it (fluoride ion, F-) is a drug, its had the long drug trials ever and there's no recorded provable ill effects if ingested at the level of 1mg/litre.

 

Yes it can cause dental and skeletal fluorosis but see above next to "yes its a poison"

 

 

I haven't got up to date figures, but since the 60s there have been about, roughly, approximately 10 kids a year dying from complications of general anaesthesia required by gross dental decay. That's frightening and as its avoidable, an absolute scandal. I often hear the argument from (mainly ) old people "but I've got no teeth, so why do I need it?" Do I really have to explain.........

 

Time to get off the high horse and ponder over a cup of tea (more fluoride) if phone masts might cause baldness.

 

The bald man on Ballaugh beach.

[Lost Login]

So is Water a potential "poision" if you drink to much.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16614865/

 

Maybe we should be arguing to have less water in our water to prevent anybody overdosing?

 

Yes it's a poison - you've got to regularly drink about 10 times the normal consumption for any ill effects to occur. Its impossible for anyone to even approach this intake by drinking the water.

[saveourwater]

Thanks Saveourwater for that link. I listened to it in full and its just like all the other scare stories. No proof or scientific study resulting in a reasoned scientific conclusion.................

 

We are opposed to artificial water Fluoridation on the following grounds:

 

1. Substances used are untreated toxic waste, contaminated with harmful and radioactive substances – you say these don’t cause harm we say they do and the medical, dental and scientific community is split on whether they cause harm or not so yes why not be safe rather than sorry, invoke the precautionary principle and keep this stuff out of our water.

 

2. Dr Emerson wants to add these substances to the water to treat a non life threatening dental condition – dental decay. To treat most diseases you are required to use licensed pharmaceutical grade medicines not toxic waste washed out of the pollution scrubber chimney stacks on top of phosphate fertiliser factories.

 

3. Safety and effectiveness in doubt. The York review the most comprehensive study of all time into water Fluoridation stated that if water Fluoridation were to go ahead at 1ppm then we could expect an average of 48% dental Fluorosis with 12.5% of aesthetic concern i.e. would need crowns or veneers to treat, both expensive treatments that require lifetime upkeep. So if we introduce Fluoridation we ‘may’ see a slight reduction in decay of the order of about 15% but we may also see an increase in another costly dental condition (which by the way is also a ‘visible sign’ of Fluoride poisoning) of 12.5% so where is the cost benefit, especially if the Fluoride is also causing harm to soft tissues, bones and organs?

 

4. Human rights, every sane individual has the right to refuse medication. Artificial water Fluoridation is being proposed with the sole purpose of treating a non life threatening dental condition.

 

5. Fluoride toothpaste is universally available and perceived benefits of Fluoride come from a direct application to the tooth surface. There is no need to swallow Fluoride unless you want dental Fluorosis, swallowing Fluoride to prevent tooth decay is like swallowing sunblock to prevent sunburn.

 

SEE LINK

 

By the way the news link from the US is not an isolated incident, the US is fighting Fluoridation nationwide and as new evidence of harm emerges all the time (ADA guidelines for babies) the fight grows in strength and numbers.

 

Surely IOM DHSS the biggest government department with the biggest budget and largest personnel base can find, help and educate the small number of children on our relatively small Island who have trouble with brushing and diet. There is absolutely no need to resort to artificial water Fluoridation when the safety and effectiveness of such as measure is in question and being fought and defeated wherever it is currently practised.

[ballaughbiker]

Savourwater

 

I'm in danger of repeating points made in earlier posts but I can't let you get away with unsubstantiated misleading and inaccurate statements to "support" your case. Are you qualified to make these statements or are they just your opinions backed up by trawling the net to find some nutty professor who agrees with you? Sorry I really don't want to be horrible but some of your statements are just factually incorrect.

 

From toxic waste? - well I don't know so I'll say no more. I am trying to confirm the source proposed though.

 

Decay none life threatening? In our society yes thank **** it is, but refer to my earlier post about GA deaths. Have a look at Ludwigs angina on the net. Decal decay has caused me a lifetimes discomfort and expense. The last big job on one tooth was £2000. Ripped off ? Maybe, but the "parts" were half of that and I saw the invoice to the dentist. If only..... I'd had fluoride from birth.

 

Effective? - you are way off track here. You could look at a section of the population that had hardly any decay and then compare it to those that had fluoride. Result? think of a number and say its a fact. Some will believe you. I don't because I know that if we look at the part of the population most at risk the effectiveness is much much higher. I'd have to refer to the latest epidemiological results from the Community Dental Service before giving an exact figure. I haven't so I won't say any old number just to suit my argument.

 

Fluorosis? Way off track doesn't even come close. Its very very rare even in areas naturally fluoridated at double the recommended dose. Which nutty professor came up with your figure? I've never seen a case except in a textbook. There are other reasons for teeth mottling but fluoride usually gets the blame without tests or evidence. Can you quote the scientific paper that gives your figure?

 

Human rights? - Agreed!!! (apart from the second sentence)

 

Topical vs systemic? Have a look at my previous post and tell me why its wrong (its not). There is clear unequivocal evidence that systemic fluoride from birth is best. Akin to swallowing sunblock? - utter bollocks. Systemic fluoride is taken up in the developing enamel as it forms. The first adult molars that appear at age 6 actually start to harden at birth. That's when you need it. Topically at 6 just isn't going to give the same enefit. Topical fluoride only affects the first few microns of enamel and does not get to the base of the fissures where decay usually starts. Fact. Systemic ingestion of normal amounts at 1mg/litre does not cause fluorosis. Who told you that it did? Where is the scientific paper with all the references that prove this? Is it the same nutty professor again?

 

Small number of children affected? I wish that were true. I repeat, those that are affected will have a lifetime to regret lack of fluoride. I know I'm one of them, now in my 50s.

 

Thank you for the debate and don't take my direct style as aggression - all the above is said with good humour!!

[saveourwater]

Savourwater

Decay none life threatening? In our society yes thank **** it is, but refer to my earlier post about GA deaths. Have a look at Ludwigs angina on the net. Decal decay has caused me a lifetimes discomfort and expense. The last big job on one tooth was £2000. Ripped off ? Maybe, but the "parts" were half of that and I saw the invoice to the dentist. If only..... I'd had fluoride from birth.

 

So we agree that decay is non life threatening, good. Why can't our DHSS find the children that have trouble with brushing and diet then? If they do their job well in the first place and help educate the people that need it then there would be no need for GA to remove mouths full of decay, entirely achievable on our relatively small Isle considering the huge resources of the DHSS. What were your exact figures by the way, and where for - the whole of the UK?

 

Effective? - you are way off track here. You could look at a section of the population that had hardly any decay and then compare it to those that had fluoride. Result? think of a number and say its a fact. Some will believe you. I don't because I know that if we look at the part of the population most at risk the effectiveness is much much higher. I'd have to refer to the latest epidemiological results from the Community Dental Service before giving an exact figure. I haven't so I won't say any old number just to suit my argument.

 

Not my words only the words of Prof Sheldon who led the biggest ever investigation into water Fluoridations effectiveness and safety commissioned by the UK Labour government, but if he was way off track then take it up with him I'm sure he would love to hear your contrary evidence that he obviously missed.

 

Fluorosis? Way off track doesn't even come close. Its very very rare even in areas naturally fluoridated at double the recommended dose. Which nutty professor came up with your figure? I've never seen a case except in a textbook. There are other reasons for teeth mottling but fluoride usually gets the blame without tests or evidence. Can you quote the scientific paper that gives your figure?

 

Again Prof Sheldon's words and findings and again you must be more of an expert than him and have access to more information than he did when he conducted his report. Dental Fluorosis ranges from white flecks on the teeth to brown 'pits' and mottling, just because you have never seen 'mottling' of the teeth doesn't mean that mild and moderate forms of Fluorosis don't exist in areas that have artificially Fluoridated water, they do.

 

Topical vs systemic? Have a look at my previous post and tell me why its wrong (its not). There is clear unequivocal evidence that systemic fluoride from birth is best. Akin to swallowing sunblock? - utter bollocks. Systemic fluoride is taken up in the developing enamel as it forms. The first adult molars that appear at age 6 actually start to harden at birth. That's when you need it. Topically at 6 just isn't going to give the same enefit. Topical fluoride only affects the first few microns of enamel and does not get to the base of the fissures where decay usually starts. Fact. Systemic ingestion of normal amounts at 1mg/litre does not cause fluorosis. Who told you that it did? Where is the scientific paper with all the references that prove this? Is it the same nutty professor again?

 

Nutty professor I don't think so, you did read the link I posted?

 

LINK AGAIN

 

The topical vs systemic debate was settled years ago and it is now almost universally accepted that any perceived benefits of Fluoride come from a direct (topical) application.

 

Nutty professor, no only experts from the US National Research Council, Centers for Disease Control, European Commission, Nobel prize winner for Medicine Dr Arvid Carlsson.....well just read the link basically.

 

Now the American Dental Association, a pro Fluoridation organisation have declared that Fluoridated water is 'unsafe' for babies and infants so your theory of that being the time when they need it most is kind of blown, you better tell them they are wrong quick.

 

 

Small number of children affected? I wish that were true. I repeat, those that are affected will have a lifetime to regret lack of fluoride. I know I'm one of them, now in my 50s.

 

If the DHSS educate and assist from birth they can tackle the problem. Why introduce a measure that at best can help decay rates by 15% yet at the same time will more than likely cause another even more expensive dental condition dental Fluorosis as proven by the most comprehensive study of all time into the practice (York Review), the answer is simple there is no benefit and when you factor in the uncertainty of safety and the human rights issue and the toxic waste issue it should be a resounding no to Fluoridation.

[ballaughbiker]

Saveourwater have a look at this link

 

BDHF

 

 

Its only the British Dental Health Foundation. What do they know? All your 'evidence' seems to come from one source "the Professor." He gets an oblique mention in the final paragraph of the BDHF information.

 

The DHSS have been educating children here for 15 years. One of the problems of dental disease is that cause and effect are separated by many years. If a child puts his hand in the fire its hurts straight away and he soon leans that his actions cause damage. If he has a shite diet of sugary drinks and sweets it hurts 3 or 4 years later. Its hard for a child to associate the two and dental education can be difficult to get over as its unimportant to the child at the time.Even kids who understand how dental disease works forget it all at the sweetshop on the way home from school. Its habits you have to change and that's difficult. Fat people know why they're fat but changing habits can sometimes be near impossible.In an ideal world we should educate children out of dental disease but its a very slow process and some never learn. They stopped training dentists in anaethesia 30 years ago but its still necessary. Ideally it shouldn't be, but in the real harsh world...

 

I can't ask the nutty prof 'cos he's not here but if fluoride's action is only topical then how does skeletal fluorosis work in cases of huge overdose. Does the water wash over the bones or might it just be absorbed systemically? How does it account for the levels of fluoride deep in hard enamel proved from extracted teeth (usually for othodontics) That didn't get there topically did it? When your on a mission (and you are!) it can be hard to keep an open mind. Have alook at other stuff and not just the ones that agree with you. Keep asking yourself why all these ills (including mottling of teeth) are not found in populations that have drunk water with natural fluoride since time was.

 

I've come to regard the agendas of some academics with great scepticism. There was an earlier nutty prof who said fillings weren't necessary a few years ago. He managed to prove something or other but the reality (real life again) is very different.

 

 

 

 

edited due to accidental posting before it was finished!