Fluoride In The Water

[saveourwater]

Can saveourwater / lovenotfear/ the nutty professor / anyone explain one thing:

 

Why are all/any of these perceived ills not suffered in the parts of the UK where water has natural fluoride ion in it and has done since the start of time? Surely some difference in health/behaviour/lifespan would have surfaced in the last few thousand years. Wouldn't it?

 

Have been off Island so apologies for the delay in replying.

 

It is my understanding that the natural Fluoride you refer to (Calcium Fluoride) is insoluble in water and that the Calcium also offers a certain level of protection against the harmful effects of the Fluorine. I have however put this question to the UK National Pure Water Association who have given this reply which should also address points raised by Chinahand:-

 

"Rest assured that a) the adverse human health consequences are real, and many, if not all, are extremely serious. They are also occurring in populations drinking 'naturally fluoridated' waters, which normally contain fluoride ions derived from the sparingly soluble fluorides of calcium and magnesium - but calcium and magnesium ions are both partially protective against fluoride toxicity; substituting the hexafluorosilicic acid anion [siF6=] as the source of fluoride ions ensures that the toxic effects of repeated ingestion are inevitably somewhat more serious for the same level of fluoride ion in the water. Moreover, the concentrated industrial waste product mixtures obtained from the so-called 'product recovery units' inevitably contain levels of other toxic contaminants which are most unlikely to have been present all together in any water source selected for further purification for domestic water supplies. In the U.S. it has been clearly established that the great majority of the arsenic present in their (70% fluoridated) public water supplies has come from the 'hex' used to fluoridate it. [Drinking water suppliers would normally only have detectable amounts of such toxic substances present as infrequent, accidental contaminations - here they are being added routinely wherever industrial waste 'hex' is being used. Their cumulative ingestion is inevitable]."

 

Ian Packington MA (Chem.) Cert. Tox.

 

We must remember that the Fluorides Dr Emerson intends to add to the Manx drinking water are NOT Calcium Fluoride but are untreated toxic waste gasses washed out of the chimney scrubber stacks via a fine water spray. They contain not only Fluoride, but Silica, Lead, Arsenic, Cadmium, Mercury, Phosphate, Chromium, Nickel, Antimony, Selenium and radioactive Uranium and Polonium. To say that these are the same as naturally occuring, insoluble 'Calcium Fluoride' and to expect them to behave in the same way inside the human body is plain wrong.

[saveourwater]

"They Used To Call Me Sh*t Teeth" FILM LINK

[saveourwater]

An article on Fluoridation appeared in yesterday's Examiner newspaper.

 

Today IOMONLINE published the full version of Dr Emerson's reply to questions they and our campaign set him, the full article can be read in the following link:-

 

DR EMERSON FULL REPLY - LINK

 

We believe Dr Emerson has made some fundamental errors in his reply and would like to set out our responses as follows.

 

DR EMERSON'S RESPONSE:

 

Thank you for giving me a chance to respond to several questions re fluoridation of water.

 

Firstly, I will comment on the Observer story. The story originates from the Environment Working Group (EWG) which happens to have no scientifically or medically qualified staff on its Board and is not a scientific body but a pressure group which lobbies vociferously in Washington for many issues.

 

EWG has a long history of releasing scare stories about baby food, cosmetics, farmed fish, mothers' milk, fruit and vegetables and so their creep into fluoridation is not unexpected. All their previous scares stories were found to be baseless on investigation by scientists and there is no reason to suspect any difference on this anti-fluoride story.

 

OUR RESPONSE

Baseless Scare Stories, I don't think so Dr Emerson, take a look at this:-

 

EWG - LINK

 

It is interesting to note that the "study" in the Observer does not refer to a link for girls in this cancer theory.

The study has NOT been published in a peer reviewed journal. As research on which the newspaper article is based is not available in the public domain I cannot comment on the reliability of the research or the newspaper article, until full details have been published.

 

OUR RESPONSE

Not been published in peer reviewed journal? I don't think so Dr Emerson, take a look at this:-

 

EWG BASSIN - LINK

 

Secondly, the UK and EU water legislation permits the use 2 chemical compounds to increase the fluoride content of water.

 

These are: Disodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) and

Hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6).

 

 

These compounds have been used in over 30 countries and for up to 40 years and their composition have not shown any evidence of harm or ill-health when used as instructed.

 

OUR RESPONSE

What about Dental Fluorosis?

 

 

Mr Glynn`s assertion that the fluoride substance "contains" lead arsenic and mercury merely demonstrates that he does not understand chemistry because Hexafluorosilicic acid is composed of the elements I list above – no lead etc is contained in the substance because they are completely different chemical compounds.

 

OUR RESPONSE

No lead etc is contained in the substance. Er yes there is, even the British Fluoridation Society admit to this (but still don't list the full range of contaminants), take a look at this:-

 

BFS - LINK

 

What are the benefits?

 

FACT: Fluoridation of water results in a decrease in dental caries in both children and adults (to a lesser extent).

 

by adding fluoride to our water we should see up to a 50 percent decline in caries numbers among our children and a 20 percent decline in adults – within 5 years.

 

OUR RESPONSE

Wrong again Dr Emerson. York Review stated caries reduction only of the order of around 15% and has issued numerous reminders to Strategic Health Authorities and the like not to use figures above this amount.

 

FACT: At least 4 International Systematic Reviews – in USA, Australia, Ireland and the UK have – not been able to show a link between fluoride (in recommended doses) and any form of cancer or other bone diseases, or kidney problems. The only known "harm" is fluorosis of the teeth which is a minor cosmetic problem in the vast majority of cases.

 

OUR RESPONSE

To define Dental Fluorosis as a minor cosmetic problem is factually inaccurate, Dental Fluorosis occurs when an excess of Fluoride interferes with the enamel forming cells in the teeth causing them to produce damaged collagen. When calcium and phosphate are deposited on this damaged foundation and framework, the distortions in the resulting tooth enamel can be seen with the naked eye. York Review found water Fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as "just a cosmetic issue".

 

The commonest cause of fluorosis is fluoride toothpaste – not fluoridated water.

 

OUR RESPONSE

See above.

 

 

There is some evidence – still relatively weak – that fluoridation protects against heart attacks in 'at risk' people.

 

OUR RESPONSE

So where is the peer reviewed evidence of this then Dr Emerson? Or does it suit you to quote non peer reviewed material only when it can be seen to support your case?

 

There are other errors in Dr Emerson's article but we are still checking them over and will report back on them after everything is verified, but the above should be of sufficient concern to everyone that Dr Emerson has not checked his FACTS.

 

We will of course be sending our responses to the Health Minister for comment but thought you should also share in them as well.

[Chinahand]

Saveourwater - Thank you for providing the "other point of view" - you'll say that in fairness both sides of the argument should be given, but that isn't how science works - the fact is the overwhelming evidence is that any ill effects of adding flouride to water are simply not repeatably measurable - scientists cannot see any consistent ill effects from doing this; apart from Dental Flourosis which occurs when ever you put flouride in the same vicinity as teeth - naturally fluorided water - the same; fluoride toothpaste - ditto. Straight question Saveourwater - are you advocating the removal of fluoride from toothpaste because of the DANGERS of dental fluorosis? If not why the double standard.

 

People have been drinking naturally fluoronated water for what 40,000 years, often at levels far higher than recommended today - guess what - no systematic ill effects.

 

Your obsession with Disodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) and Hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is fascinating. But the use of this technology is 60 years old - it has been tested on hundreds of millions of people and all the lawyers in America cannot find a case to get some money out of the water companies.

 

I realize you don't care what the science and research says - you have an irrational fear and are going to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it. Your like a stuck record, stuck record, stuck record, stuck record, stuck record ...

 

Yippee - lets just keep on posting.

[saveourwater]

Chinahand I realise that we sit on opposing sides of the fence where water fluoridation is concerned, and will possibly never agree on certain points.

 

The above post however was made to point out errors that Dr Emerson as the DHSS 'expert' on water Fluoridation has made. He has put this information in the public domain and we believe it is inaccurate.

 

Our campaign is about water Fluoridation, not Fluoride in toothpaste which is after all consumer choice, and in any case we have already answered the point about the cause of Fluorosis in that - York Review found water Fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental Fluorosis. I would like to see Dr Emerson's peer reviewed evidence that shows toothpaste causes most cases of Fluorosis and I will be asking him for it.

 

Hopefully other people will be interested enough to check Dr Emerson's information, including our own government and then make up their own minds on who is telling the truth.

[Chinahand]

Chinahand I realise that we sit on opposing sides of the fence where water fluoridation is concerned, and will possibly never agree on certain points.

No saveourwater my beef with you isn't about fluoride in water - I'm basically neutral towards it - my kids will get fluoride coatings etc - while drinking fluorinated water would also help I am not so concerned as to think it is absolutely necessary - if its done, its done, if not I won't be unduely concerned. However saving the Manx health service from performing 180,000 fillings is a cost I am concerned about saving - this figure is exactly the average out of the York report by the way - don't underestimate the benefits.

 

No, my beef with you is about your distortion of science. You seem to have little understanding of risks and cost benefits and you will use every extreme case and scare story to exagerate negligable dangers into a fake serious issue.

 

You go on about the Observer story and link to lurid press briefings about the research. However you ignore what the actual researcher who has undertaken the research has said about the issue

 

The principal investigator for the overall study cautions against over interpreting or generalizing the results of the Bassin analysis, stressing that preliminary analysis of a second set of cases does not appear to replicate the findings (Douglass et al., 2006).

 

I already pointed this out to you (here), have you learnt from reading the science and so moderated your views. No you continue to push your scare story. Go and read the paper where the scientists who actually undertook the research warn people like you:

... are cautioned not to generalize and over-interpret the results of the Bassin et al. paper and to await the publications from the full study, before making conclusions, and especially before influencing any related policy decisions.

Unfortunately you have totally ignored this advice and have over-interpreted the results and turned good science into a scare story for your own ends.

 

In your post you say:

OUR RESPONSE

What about Dental Fluorosis?

Yes what about dental flurosis.

 

How about this meta study

The decline in dental caries prevalence and incidence in developed countries over the last two decades is considered to be largely due to the widespread use of fluoride. Simultaneously, with the decline in caries, an increase in the prevalence of dental fluorosis has been noticed. The increase is in the mild and very mild forms of fluorosis, and is proportionally greater in non-fluoridated areas than in fluoridated areas. This is because of the increase in the mean fluoride intake from all sources since the 1940s. The increase in fluorosis prevalence prompted numerous studies on risk factors for fluorosis. As a result the literature over the last two decades has also reported numerous studies with differing and confusing results. This paper describes for the clinician the condition and summarizes the recent literature on the risk factors for fluorosis. Only well conducted studies evaluating risk factors or indicators and quantifying the risk for dental fluorosis from the 1980s through the 1990s time period were included in this review. Four major risk factors were consistently identified: use of fluoridated drinking water, fluoride supplements, fluoride toothpaste, and infant formulas before the age of six years.

What do we learn from this: yes fluorosis has increased - accepted - the increase is only in mild and very mild forms. AND it is greater in non-fluorinated areas. Put that in your water and drink it!

 

Now lets look at Fluorosis in a fluorinated area - as this study does:

Those who brushed their teeth before the age of 25 months had 11 times the odds of fluorosis compared with those beginning toothbrushing later; prolonged use of infant formula (greater than or equal to 13 months) was associated with 3.5 times the risk of fluorosis, compared with no, or shorter duration of, formula use. We estimate that these factors were responsible for 72% and 22%, respectively, of the cases in our population. Dental fluorosis is not a public health problem in East York, but parents should be advised to supervise toothbrushing by children under 2 years of age.

What does this tell us? Well that Dental Fluorosis is NOT a public health problem, but is most strongly correlated with toothpaste and then prolonged use of infant formula. Erm isn't this what you've been told and refused to believe.

DR EMERSON'S RESPONSE:

Mr Glynn`s assertion that the fluoride substance "contains" lead arsenic and mercury merely demonstrates that he does not understand chemistry because Hexafluorosilicic acid is composed of the elements I list above – no lead etc is contained in the substance because they are completely different chemical compounds.

OUR RESPONSE

No lead etc is contained in the substance. Er yes there is, even the British Fluoridation Society admit to this (but still don't list the full range of contaminants), take a look at this:-

BFS - LINK

OK now here I will admit Dr Emerson is being simplistic, but your reply really interested me - mainly because I was the person who originally provided this link to you. Have you actually read the link?

 

This is what the link says about lead:

trace elements such as lead and arsenic are present in minute quantities in fluoride compounds. This is because fluoride compounds are derived from naturally occurring minerals, and such trace elements are always present in minerals of this type.

So your right, Dr Emerson is ignoring TRACE levels, but what else does the link say:

‘No credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bioaccumulation or reactivity of lead(0) or lead(II) compounds.’

and

Because of the high dilution factor the levels of any impurities added as a result of fluoridation are very small indeed, and have no discernible impact on the toxicity of drinking water. ... Stringent European and British drinking water quality regulations - which are rigorously enforced - ensure that maximum permitted levels are far too low to be harmful.

Saveourwater you are scare mongering - as I have pointed out earlier our water industry has well tested and scientifically demonstated standards in water quality. The maximum level of lead added due to fluorodization is twenty times lower than the permitted level of lead in drinking water.

 

You are deliberately distorting a level of lead which is 5% of the permitted level into a scare story and ignoring the scientific evidence that water fluoridation does not have any quantifiable effects on bioaccumulation of lead.

 

To claim the British Fluoridation Society link supports your exaggerations is just plain wrong and is disengenuous to the point of being mendacious. Yes Dr Emerson ignored trace levels of lead - why - because they are insignificant. You are unable to accept that. Not for any scientific reason, but due to your irrational point of view that will ignore all evidence to the contrary and exaggerate any evidence, no matter how slight, that supports your claims.

 

As ever you are a stuck record which ignores and distorts the scientific facts.

[saveourwater]

No saveourwater my beef with you isn't about fluoride in water - I'm basically neutral towards it - my kids will get fluoride coatings etc - while drinking fluorinated water would also help I am not so concerned as to think it is absolutely necessary - if its done, its done, if not I won't be unduely concerned. However saving the Manx health service from performing 180,000 fillings is a cost I am concerned about saving - this figure is exactly the average out of the York report by the way - don't underestimate the benefits.

 

As already explained on numerous occasions any 'perceived' benefits of Fluoridation (despite now universal aggreement that Fluoride works topically - but we'll ignore that shall we) are cancelled out due to the increased risk of Dental Fluorosis, a condition why is more costly to treat over a lifetime because it involves crowning or capping the teeth. I prefer to use York's data on this issue than any studies you care to link to seeing as York was the most comprehensive study of all time into the issue of water Fluoridation.

 

No, my beef with you is about your distortion of science. You seem to have little understanding of risks and cost benefits and you will use every extreme case and scare story to exagerate negligable dangers into a fake serious issue.

 

You go on about the Observer story and link to lurid press briefings about the research. However you ignore what the actual researcher who has undertaken the research has said about the issue

 

The principal investigator for the overall study cautions against over interpreting or generalizing the results of the Bassin analysis, stressing that preliminary analysis of a second set of cases does not appear to replicate the findings (Douglass et al., 2006).

 

 

No, this is not what the 'actual researcher' said, the actual researcher was Bassin, the principal investigator was Chester Douglass. I wonder why he said to take the results of this particular study with caution, was it because he also works for Colgate?

 

LINK 1

 

LINK 2

 

 

OK now here I will admit Dr Emerson is being simplistic, but your reply really interested me - mainly because I was the person who originally provided this link to you. Have you actually read the link?

 

This is what the link says about lead:

 

'trace elements such as lead and arsenic are present in minute quantities in fluoride compounds. This is because fluoride compounds are derived from naturally occurring minerals, and such trace elements are always present in minerals of this type.'

 

So your right, Dr Emerson is ignoring TRACE levels, but what else does the link say:

 

‘No credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bioaccumulation or reactivity of lead(0) or lead(II) compounds.’

and

 

'Because of the high dilution factor the levels of any impurities added as a result of fluoridation are very small indeed, and have no discernible impact on the toxicity of drinking water. ... Stringent European and British drinking water quality regulations - which are rigorously enforced - ensure that maximum permitted levels are far too low to be harmful.'

 

Saveourwater you are scare mongering - as I have pointed out earlier our water industry has well tested and scientifically demonstated standards in water quality. The maximum level of lead added due to fluorodization is twenty times lower than the permitted level of lead in drinking water.

 

You are deliberately distorting a level of lead which is 5% of the permitted level into a scare story and ignoring the scientific evidence that water fluoridation does not have any quantifiable effects on bioaccumulation of lead.

 

To claim the British Fluoridation Society link supports your exaggerations is just plain wrong and is disengenuous to the point of being mendacious. Yes Dr Emerson ignored trace levels of lead - why - because they are insignificant. You are unable to accept that. Not for any scientific reason, but due to your irrational point of view that will ignore all evidence to the contrary and exaggerate any evidence, no matter how slight, that supports your claims.

 

You may have linked the BFS website Chinahand but please don't presume that you originally provided me with the information, we have been researching this issue for a long time now.

 

Dr Emerson has falsely claimed that the the Fluorosilicates do not contain contaminants, they do. He also failed to supply a list of all contaminants depsite numerous requests to do so.

 

Lead, Arsenic and Mercury (and Fluoride for that matter) are toxic in the parts per Billion so ANY increase in levels of these highly toxic substances in drinking water are of concern, especially when a public official is denying that they even exist in the Fluorosilicates, but we will let the public and government decide about that shall we.

 

I would have thought that any parent would be concerned if any evidence of increased risk of cancer (especially a childhood cancer) was raised, especially on an Island already blighted by this group of diseases.

[Chinahand]

As already explained on numerous occasions any 'perceived' benefits of Fluoridation (despite now universal aggreement that Fluoride works topically - but we'll ignore that shall we) are cancelled out due to the increased risk of Dental Fluorosis, a condition why is more costly to treat over a lifetime because it involves crowning or capping the teeth. I prefer to use York's data on this issue than any studies you care to link to seeing as York was the most comprehensive study of all time into the issue of water Fluoridation.

 

What you say above is complete rubbish - if fluorodation increases fluorosis and reduces cavities you then have to compare the risks and benefits of cavities verses fluorosis. And your claims about the costs of crowning and capping due to fluorosis is absolutely scare mongering (I'd love to know where you got figures for that claim from) - as I've linked the issue is mild to very mild fluorosis - oh but you only use the York study data - OK.

 

I like the fact that you see the York report as being the most comprehensive study: Have you actually read what it says about fluorosis?

 

The figures shown in Table 7.8 show that the difference between the proportion of the population affected with fluorosis of aesthetic concern. ... Increasing the water fluoride level from 0.4 to 1.0ppm, the level to which water supplies are often artificially fluoridated, would mean that one additional person for every 22 people receiving water fluoridated to this level would have fluorosis of aesthetic concern. However, the confidence limits around this value include infinity, which means that it is possible that there is no risk. This is because the differences in proportions were not statistically significant (the confidence intervals include zero).

 

So the York study cannot find a statistically significant link between Fluorosis and fluoridation at 1.0 ppm, or at 1.2ppm (a twenty percent increase in fluoride level). Oh by the way - the figure for the number of cavities reduced is statistically significant.

 

The range of mean change in dmft/DMFT score was from 0.5 to 4.4, median 2.25 teeth (interquartile range 1.28, 3.63 teeth).

 

Saveourwater, you do realize how stupid you are making yourself look, by quoting scientific evidence that destroys your argument as though it supported you!

 

The principal investigator for the overall study cautions against over interpreting or generalizing the results of the Bassin analysis, stressing that preliminary analysis of a second set of cases does not appear to replicate the findings (Douglass et al., 2006).

 

No, this is not what the 'actual researcher' said, the actual researcher was Bassin, the principal investigator was Chester Douglass. I wonder why he said to take the results of this particular study with caution, was it because he also works for Colgate?

 

LINK 1

 

LINK 2

Again you are unable to understand the facts of the issue from the noise of the story.

 

The relevent parts of the Harvard story are

 

Harvard’s review of Douglass took 13 months to complete. According to Lacey’s e-mail, two committees, comprised mainly of senior faculty members not from the HSDM, independently concluded that “Dr. Douglass did not commit research misconduct, and did not have a conflict-of-interest as editor of a newsletter produced by Colgate.”

 

After the committees compiled their report, it was sent to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), which is a federal organization that monitors investigations of institutional research misconduct.

 

“After reviewing our report, they determined that no further investigation was required,” says Lacey.

 

In August 2006, Harvard released a four paragraph statement exonerating Douglass.

 

The article may have taken the opportunity to rehash all the allegations against him - don't you just love journalism. But the fact is Professor Douglass was exonerated - not by one committee, but by two and not once, but twice once by the University and once by the Federal oversight body. His caution over the link between fluoridation and osteosarcoma is justified.

 

 

You may have linked the BFS website Chinahand but please don't presume that you originally provided me with the information, we have been researching this issue for a long time now.

 

Dr Emerson has falsely claimed that the the Fluorosilicates do not contain contaminants, they do. He also failed to supply a list of all contaminants depsite numerous requests to do so.

 

Lead, Arsenic and Mercury (and Fluoride for that matter) are toxic in the parts per Billion so ANY increase in levels of these highly toxic substances in drinking water are of concern, especially when a public official is denying that they even exist in the Fluorosilicates, but we will let the public and government decide about that shall we.

 

I would have thought that any parent would be concerned if any evidence of increased risk of cancer (especially a childhood cancer) was raised, especially on an Island already blighted by this group of diseases.

 

Amazing - you've been researching this issue for a long time - but put up papers which show that the fluorodation process does not add significant levels of lead to the water source and does not increase levels of bioaccummulation; and you claim they support your case - do you actually read what you are putting up.

 

You now go on about arsenic and mercury - with lead the fluoridation limits are 20 times below safe levels. With mercury its one hundred times lower and with arsenic is the same as lead at 20 time lower.

 

Saveourwater, you really are being a fool here. Certainly let there be a public debate - but one based on science and not your scaremongering.

 

I see you have selectively quoted Dr Emerson in your reply: He caviats his statement about fluorosilicates with the following statement.

 

He may be referring to some sort of theory he has that the fluoride compounds are contaminated with lead and arsenic but, as I have shown above, the purity and quality standards for the fluoride substances are strictly regulated so that does not happen in a good quality system such as that found in the IOM water Authority.

 

Who is closer to the truth - Dr Emerson; who says the chemical Hexafluorosilicic does not and cannot contain lead etc - a true statement for the pure chemical - and then goes on (in a section you have not quoted) to discuss contaminants and their successful control. Or you; who is trying to make an issue at contaminant levels up to 100 times below safe levels.

 

All we are getting from you is scaremongering, a basic misunderstanding of the science, selective quoting and claims that are not supported by the data you use to support your claims.

 

Stuck record, stuck record, stuck record.

[saveourwater]

Dental Fluorosis - taken from York’s website Executive Summary: -

 

The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm was estimated to be 48% (95% CI 40 to 57) and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern it was predicted to be 12.5% (95% CI 7.0 to 21.5). A very rough estimate of the number of people who would have to be exposed to water fluoride levels of 1.0 ppm for one additional person to develop fluorosis of any level is 6 (95% CI 4 to 21), when compared with a theoretical low fluoride level of 0.4 ppm. Of these approximately one quarter will have fluorosis of aesthetic concern, but the precision of these rough estimates is low. These estimates only apply to the comparison of 1.0 ppm to 0.4 ppm, and would be different if other levels were compared.

 

LINK

 

So 12.5% with Dental Fluorosis of aesthetic concern at 1ppm.

 

To treat this condition you require crowns or veneers, ask any dentist. Also ask them how long they will last and how much they cost per tooth and then let’s see your risk / benefit analysis compared to a very meager reduction in caries.

 

Regarding the Harvard study - student uncovers fluoridation cancer link! Professor 'forgets' to include finding in report to government but says that the final report was not the 'real' final report and is let off in investigations. Professor also works for toothpaste giant that use Fluoride in many of their products, but you’re right Chinahand nothing untoward here.

 

Dr Emerson is on record as stating that the Fluorosilicates do not contain Lead, they do end of story (amongst other extremely undesirable substances).

 

The ‘product’ is never going to be ‘pure’ because it is untreated toxic waste, he misled the public on this not me.

 

Interesting to note that the American Dental Association and Centre For Disease Control both now recommend that you should not use Fluoridated water for babies in the first year of life because of 'Dental Fluorosis'. Seeing as the whole point of water Fluoridation is to affect they teeth before they erupt how can this be achieved if we follow the new advice?

 

Ireland is now also set to reduce the level of Fluoridation from 1ppm to 0.7ppm because of an epidemic of Dental Fluorosis, so is this the 'new' optimal level and is Dr Emerson going to follow suit?

[VinnieK]

To treat this condition you require crowns or veneers, ask any dentist. Also ask them how long they will last and how much they cost per tooth and then let’s see your risk / benefit analysis compared to a very meager reduction in caries.

 

Crowns typically last anything from ten to fifteen years, but can last for twenty years with good care. The cost varies: privately they may cost around £320 per crown, depending on whether or not they need a post, but the price on the NHS varies. £189 pounds is their stock price for complex procedures like crowns, but includes any less complex work you need done - i.e. you could get a check up, clean, two fillings and a crown for that price, some of which will be paid for you if you can demonstrate that you're on a low income.

 

Regarding the Harvard study - student uncovers fluoridation cancer link!

 

You really don't read your own links, do you?

 

Quoted from the link you yourself supplied

 

"There were 26 studies of the association of water fluoridation and cancer included. Eighteen of these studies are from the lowest level of evidence (level C) with the highest risk of bias.

 

There is no clear association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence and mortality. This was also true for osteosarcoma and bone/joint cancers. Only two studies considered thyroid cancer and neither found a statistically significant association with water fluoridation.

 

Overall, no clear association between water fluoridation and incidence or mortality of bone cancers, thyroid cancer or all cancers was found. "

 

If you're serious about persuing your cause then either do those you're trying to convince the courtesy of properly reading your sources, or please get someone else to be your spokesperson.

[saveourwater]

'Regarding the Harvard study - student uncovers fluoridation cancer link!'

 

You really don't read your own links, do you?

 

Quoted from the link you yourself supplied

 

"There were 26 studies of the association of water fluoridation and cancer included. Eighteen of these studies are from the lowest level of evidence (level C) with the highest risk of bias.

 

There is no clear association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence and mortality. This was also true for osteosarcoma and bone/joint cancers. Only two studies considered thyroid cancer and neither found a statistically significant association with water fluoridation.

 

Overall, no clear association between water fluoridation and incidence or mortality of bone cancers, thyroid cancer or all cancers was found. "

 

If you're serious about persuing your cause then either do those you're trying to convince the courtesy of properly reading your sources, or please get someone else to be your spokesperson.

 

 

I think you may be confusing 2 different issues here VinnieK.

 

That quote was from York which was carried out in 2000.

 

The Bassin study was only published last year, totally separate issue. Do we still need a new spokesperson?

[VinnieK]

That quote was from York which was carried out in 2000.

 

The Bassin study was only published last year, totally separate issue. Do we still need a new spokesperson?

 

Yes, yes you do, because at the moment you're cherry picking (poor) evidence and basing your case on the hope that everyone who listens to you is too lazy to read about it themselves. Bassin's study was confined to a small subset of the population - even a member of the committee who approved her doctoral thesis, upon which the study is based, has warned against extrapolating too much from the data she presented.

 

In short, the study is suggestive, not conclusive, and must be read cautiously and in the context of a survey of the existing medical literature, which broadly concludes that there is no demonstrable link between fluoride in water supplies and cancer. Bassin's work isn't some revolutionary exhaustive trial that overturns the existing consensus.

 

In fact a review of Bassin's paper concludes:

 

"The estimates of fluoride in drinking water

at each residence do not reflect the actual

consumption of fluoride.

 

The study did no obtain biologic markers for

fluoride uptake in bone.

 

The actual amount of fluoride in a

fluoridated supply may vary (within

guideline levels).

 

Natural fluoride levels can vary over time

(the researchers thought this unlikely for the

time spent at each residence).

 

There is a lack of data on other potential

confounders."

 

It also states:

 

"The preliminary findings from the overall

analysis of the cases identified between

1993 and 2000 (second set of cases) do not

show an association between osteosarcoma

and fluoride in drinking water."

 

The full text is available here.

 

In fact, Bassin herself states that further study would be needed in order to confirm her findings, which you would have known if you'd actually bothered to read anything more substantial than Nazidentistsstealmythoughts.com

[Chinahand]

Dental Fluorosis - taken from York’s website Executive Summary: -

 

The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm was estimated to be 48% (95% CI 40 to 57) and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern it was predicted to be 12.5% (95% CI 7.0 to 21.5). A very rough estimate of the number of people who would have to be exposed to water fluoride levels of 1.0 ppm for one additional person to develop fluorosis of any level is 6 (95% CI 4 to 21), when compared with a theoretical low fluoride level of 0.4 ppm. Of these approximately one quarter will have fluorosis of aesthetic concern, but the precision of these rough estimates is low. These estimates only apply to the comparison of 1.0 ppm to 0.4 ppm, and would be different if other levels were compared.

 

LINK

 

So 12.5% with Dental Fluorosis of aesthetic concern at 1ppm.

 

Please read what you are putting up and stop cherry picking individual numbers! Please note the words "a very rough estimate"; and that "approximately" in the one quarter who will have aesthetic concern; and the statement that "the precision of these rough estimates is low". These words are important and are there because the results are not statistically significant.

 

You need to read the full report and not just the executive summary - See page 45 of the York report (p59 of 100 in the PDF). And go and read table 7.8.

 

With both methods of measuring the prevalence of fluorosis, a significant dose-response relationship was identified through the univariate regression analysis (Tables 7.1 and 7.6; Figures 7.1 and 7.2). The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0ppm was estimated to be 48% (95% CI 40 to 57) for any fluorosis and 12.5% (95% CI 7.0, 21.5) for fluorosis of aesthetic concern. The numbers of additional people who would have to be exposed to water fluoride levels of 1.0 or 1.2ppm for one additional person to develop fluorosis of any level were quite low, 5 or 6 when comparing to a theoretical low fluoride level of 0.4ppm (Table 7.3). For fluorosis of aesthetic concern to occur in one additional person, however, the number was 22 at 1ppm, but the 95% CI included infinity (Table 7.8).

 

The science shows that 12.5% of people will have fluorosis of an aesthetic concern in an area with 1.00ppm fluoridation. BUT the issue is what would be the level if there was NO FLUORODATION or low fluorodation (0.04ppm). The results show that there is not a statistically significant difference - the 95% CI included infinity.

 

Do you understand this?

 

Why the seemingly conflicting data - because fluorosis can exist at any level of fluoride and the increase between zero or low levels (0.4ppm) and fluorinated levels (1.0ppm) is too close to measure.

 

As I keep on telling you. STOP MISREPRESENTING THE SCIENCE.

 

This is not an absolute issue, but a relative one - comparing how things will change if fluoride is added.

[saveourwater]

That quote was from York which was carried out in 2000.

 

The Bassin study was only published last year, totally separate issue. Do we still need a new spokesperson?

 

Yes, yes you do, because at the moment you're cherry picking (poor) evidence and basing your case on the hope that everyone who listens to you is too lazy to read about it themselves. Bassin's study was confined to a small subset of the population - even a member of the committee who approved her doctoral thesis, upon which the study is based, has warned against extrapolating too much from the data she presented.

 

In short, the study is suggestive, not conclusive, and must be read cautiously and in the context of a survey of the existing medical literature, which broadly concludes that there is no demonstrable link between fluoride in water supplies and cancer. Bassin's work isn't some revolutionary exhaustive trial that overturns the existing consensus.

 

In fact a review of Bassin's paper concludes:

 

"The estimates of fluoride in drinking water

at each residence do not reflect the actual

consumption of fluoride.

 

The study did no obtain biologic markers for

fluoride uptake in bone.

 

The actual amount of fluoride in a

fluoridated supply may vary (within

guideline levels).

 

Natural fluoride levels can vary over time

(the researchers thought this unlikely for the

time spent at each residence).

 

There is a lack of data on other potential

confounders."

 

It also states:

 

"The preliminary findings from the overall

analysis of the cases identified between

1993 and 2000 (second set of cases) do not

show an association between osteosarcoma

and fluoride in drinking water."

 

The full text is available here.

 

In fact, Bassin herself states that further study would be needed in order to confirm her findings, which you would have known if you'd actually bothered to read anything more substantial than Nazidentistsstealmythoughts.com

 

 

Nice try VinnieK but it was Dr Emerson who stated publicly that the Bassin report had not been published in peer reviewed material after IOM newspapers (not our group) asked him about the study.

 

You got the issue confused with what York said about cancer and can't admit that mistake, you instead make playground taunts about fictitous websites, nice one!

[VinnieK]

Nice try VinnieK but it was Dr Emerson who stated publicly that the Bassin report had not been published in peer reviewed material after IOM newspapers (not our group) asked him about the study.

 

You got the issue confused with what York said about cancer and can't admit that mistake, you instead make playground taunts about fictitous websites, nice one!

 

I take it that you're not going to even try to comment on any of the flaws pointed out in Bassin's study then? Instead diverting the issue to what Dr Emerson said.

 

Dr Emerson's comments are irrelevant to this - the issue, since you need reminding, is that you said that a student found a link between cancer and fluoride. My point is this:

 

1. In the link you provided, the York report concludes that all studies previous to Bassin fail to demonstrate a link between cancer and fluoride in the water supply;

 

2. Drawing conclusions regarding such a link from Bassin's study (as well as Bassin's own methods and conclusions) has been heavily criticised (as shown in the link I provided) ;

 

3. Bassin herself has effectively stated that her study is not conclusive.

 

Now, if you're going to continue waving this study about in the air with a shrill "a-ha!", you're going to have to deal with these three points, namely by:

 

1. Telling us why the criticism is wrong;

 

2. Explaining why we should have more confidence in the study than Bassin herself does;

 

3. Explaining why this overthrows the consensus regarding fluoride and cancer.

 

To this end, Dr Emerson saying this or that serves no purpose, so start again and get cracking.