Public Meeting - Water Fluoridation

[saveourwater]

I've asked this before, more than once, but can anyone explain why people living in areas of the UK that have natural fluoridation have no increased incidence of any disease than can be attributable to drinking water containing fluoride ion?

 

Here is a reply I obtained for you when you asked the same question on a previous occasion:-

 

"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.

 

When the body is overloaded with even higher levels of fluoride Skeletal Fluorosis develops: WIKI LINK.

[ans]

Ian Packington MA (Chem.) Cert. Tox.

 

In this instance, we have someone, Ian Packington who according to the various web-sites on which he features apparently has an MA and a Cert Tox. I don’t know what he got his MA for, but the Cert Tox is apparently a Certificate in Toxicology & Industrial Hygiene obtained online from Drexel University in the USA. He is referred to as being an Independent Science Adviser of a pressure group called the National Pure Water Association Ltd. If you look at its site it uses expressions such as ‘poison’ and ‘cover-up’ in connection with fluoridation. It also worries me that I cannot find from the site itself who the backers or members of the committee are. Mr Packington, however, is it seems a member of the executive committee of the NPWA - see the local Liberal Party link below. You have to go to the Companies House site to find out who the Directors are. They include Mr Packington, so quite how he is an independent adviser I am not sure.

 

Do you have any credible sources?

[saveourwater]

In this instance, we have someone, Ian Packington who according to the various web-sites on which he features apparently has an MA and a Cert Tox. I don’t know what he got his MA for, but the Cert Tox is apparently a Certificate in Toxicology & Industrial Hygiene obtained online from Drexel University in the USA. He is referred to as being an Independent Science Adviser of a pressure group called the National Pure Water Association Ltd. If you look at its site it uses expressions such as ‘poison’ and ‘cover-up’ in connection with fluoridation. It also worries me that I cannot find from the site itself who the backers or members of the committee are. Mr Packington, however, is it seems a member of the executive committee of the NPWA - see the local Liberal Party link below. You have to go to the Companies House site to find out who the Directors are. They include Mr Packington, so quite how he is an independent adviser I am not sure.

 

Thanks for that annonymous quote taken from another website LINK

 

 

Do you have any credible sources?

 

Are you suggesting Mr Packington is lying?

[ans]

Thanks for that annonymous quote taken from another website LINK

 

Do you refute the claims made? The qualification from an online US university for example?

 

 

Are you suggesting Mr Packington is lying?

 

I have no idea. But I would suggest that anyone claiming to be an Independent Scientific Advisor to a group that they are a director of has credibility issues when it comes to their independent status.

[BigDave]

When the body is overloaded with even higher levels of fluoride Skeletal Fluorosis develops: WIKI LINK.

 

In the United States, an average of 1 ppm of fluoride is intentionally added to water supplies for water fluoridation. The Maximum Contaminant Level (as established by the US Environmental Protection Agency) is 4 ppm. Symptomatic skeletal fluorosis is almost unknown in the U.S.

[Skeddan]

...However even if we fully accept all the potential risks of fluoridation, why have any/all of these perceived ills not happened in areas of natural fluoridation where people have drunk water containing fluoride ion for thousands of years? If it is a drug ( debatable but I understand where you are coming from) it has had the longest drug trials of any drug hasn't it?

 

I've asked this before, more than once, but can anyone explain why people living in areas of the UK that have natural fluoridation have no increased incidence of any disease than can be attributable to drinking water containing fluoride ion?

 

Fair point -

 

First one might take into account the possibility that populations native to areas with naturally occurring high F in water have evolutionary adaptation to this. To give an analogy it might be like lactose intolerance in some populations but not others. This itself might show there is no 'ecological validity' for supposing no harmful effects suddenly increase F levels in water for a population that is not accustomed to this. Some people might be more prone to problems from exposure than others - just as some people have genetic risk for developing various problems. Dietary factors may play a role as well in protecting against harmful effects (e.g. anti-oxidants).

 

Secondly as the longest drug trials of all it is a very poor one to use. It may be trite to say this, but there are no historical figures for population health giving incidence of kidney problems, sterility, ADHD, autism, auto-immune disorders and the like. It may in any case be small (e.g. 0.05% of population) and not figure as such. There is also longer life expectancy and mortality rates than historically (F accumulates). Overall it may not be a devastating health problem like bubonic plague, but in a modern society one looks at problems in a very different way. (e.g. incidence of dental caries in children with average of two fillings is a 'serious problem').

 

Thirdly it is not always clear that there has always been high F in water. e.g. groundwater may not have high F, but has in modern times been tapped to reservoirs which are high F.

 

Fourtly, I'd be wary about supposing "no increased incidence of any disease than can be attributable to drinking water containing fluoride ion" First the problems may not be 'disease' or life-threatening - and may be neurological rather than what might be typical 'illness'. Also lack of evidence is not evidence. I don't know of studies that have examined whether or not there is a link with autism, ADHD, fertility problems, polycystic ovaries, kidney disease etc. etc. (with all variables including long term exposure, exposure during gestation etc.etc.). Furthermore a lot of problems are also undiagnosed and not recognised, and there are regional differences in that as well. Has a study examined 'anti-social behaviour' and drinking water? (e.g. comparing Midlands and IoM). If so, this may be 'rain and baldness', or explainable by other more obvious factors - but maybe fluoridation is one of many factors. You cannot simply attribute problems on the basis of studies of this kind. Equally one cannot claim that water fluoridation is safe on such comparisons and this kind of basis unless they are very very carefully and systematically conducted studies. The fallacy is to go from 'no evidence of problem' to 'no problem'. Personally I think the starting point is to look at what is known from lab studies (e.g. neurotoxic effects, effects on FSH etc. etc.). This clearly puts the onus to show it is safe (Clearly 'no evidence it is safe' does not mean one can be confident that there is no potential hazzard).

 

Fifthly, there IS evidence of health problems in places with natural high F - see the abstracts of the journal linked to in my previous post - with incidence of problems in China and India, and which have been attributed to drinking water containing F. (I didn't deal expressly with this question given the link to the paper, but probably should have done).

 

Potentially there ought to be filtration of F in such areas - just as lead, mercury etc. might be filtered. (and F has similar neurotoxic effects).

 

To sum it up, I just don't see the 'evidence' from places with natural high F is such as to warrant considering it safe to artificially add what is known to be a neurotoxin to a water supply which is low in F.

 

By contrast the evidence given in the papers in the journal linked to is, IMO, sufficient to show that there are harmful effects of F which may pose threat even in 'optimal levels'. (especially during gestation and to infants, and possibly in long term). It won't kill you, but could lead to a host of problems that show up in population and which are now huge issues in developed countries, but relatively minor problems in under-developed countries (where famine, AIDS, malaria, cholera etc has been or are more pressing issues).

 

Quite honestly it is not a huge scare - there won't be people dropping like flies or anything. I'm not rushing out to get a fluoride filter. However it seems to me there is a risk, and it seems likely that some people - not even that many - will be adversely affected. I'd think the risk is particularly high during pregnancy and infancy - and it is long term. Nothing to be overly alarmed about, but, on the other hand, what is the benefit of adding this 'contaminant' and neurotoxin to the water? Reduction in caries? (with increase in periodontitis).

 

I am wholly supportive of your view on this. I myself am not conclusively convinced that there is a problem - just that it is a risk. I take a similar view to you and don't think it ethical to add something into someone's water when they have good oral hygiene and are not at risk of dental health problems that this is meant to treat, and that person has legitimate concerns over the possible harmful effects. Given alternatives I don't think this is justifiable and I don't think there is any evidence which answers these concerns in anything like a satisfactory way. What the evidence shows to me is there is good reason to have concern.

 

However perhaps we differ since, from what I have seen of recent independent research, IMO, the possible risks far outweigh known bankable benefits. (even so I would accept that this should be properly modelled before arriving at any firm and definitive conclusions about this - e.g. what is cost of caries, what is prevalence.cost.risk of learning disorders, kidney disease, sterility, etc. - here the 'cost' factors also need to be considered - i.e. not just economic, but e.g. quality of life effects of gingivitus and dental caries vs. neurological disorders, auto-immune disorders etc. How many will be affected - 40% with caries vs. 0.01% with autsim, 0.02% with sterility etc. etc.) Given broad agreement on ethical issues, I can live with a difference of opinion - I understand you might not feel there is much of a risk, and was of that view myself - I still am to an extent, at least as far as I am concerned as an individual (not being a pregnant mother or having infants etc.).

 

I don't suggest you take this view - but I would also accept taht as an economically purely selfish individual it may be rational to want to have it - it might reduce dental costs marginally, so could reduce taxes and it is others who suffer adverse affects - maybe not even in one's own generation (except that it may then create an even bigger cost down the track, but that's a gamble that might be willing to take - bird in the hand and all that, and might be dead and gone by that time anyway, or Ritalin will be cheaper etc. and look at NPV etc.).

 

 

In the journal, see for example the abstract - FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER: A REVIEW ON THE STATUS AND STESS EFFECTS:

 

FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER: A REVIEW ON THE STATUS AND STESS EFFECTS

According to latest estimates, around 200 million people residing in 25 nations are exposed

to toxic levels of fluoride in their drinking water. China and India, the two most populous

countries in the world, are the worst affected. India in particular has numerous water quality

problems caused by prolific fluoride contamination of geological origin. Weathering of

primary rocks and leaching of fluoride minerals in soils produce fluoride-rich groundwater

generally associated with low levels of calcium and bicarbonate ions. Unfettered tapping of

groundwater exacerbates the failure of drinking water sources and accelerates the entry of

fluoride into groundwater. Despite claims of anticaries benefits, average fluoride

concentrations as low as 0.5 and 0.7 ppm have been found in India to cause dental and skeletal

fluorosis, respectively, with crippling effects often seen at higher concentrations. Nearly

37,000 habitations in India are known to be affected, and the numbers continue to increase. A

close association between poverty and fluorosis occurs with malnutrition playing an aggressive

role in its severity. The review cites 311 references and has 13 tables and five maps, including

the occurrence of endemic fluorosis globally, in India, and in several other countries.

[Skeddan]

Are you suggesting Mr Packington is lying?

...

I have no idea. But I would suggest that anyone claiming to be an Independent Scientific Advisor to a group that they are a director of has credibility issues when it comes to their independent status.

 

I agree. I also think Prof Lennon of the BSF also has credibilty issues as an independent scientific expert. Similarly info obtained from BSF is also suspect. I think there is total crap from the anti-fluoride lobby also, and one has to approach all such info with great scepticisim. There are polarised views that are often extreme and which do not accruately represent what truly independent scientfic experts are saying. Isn't it better to look at taht rather than YouTube, Wikipedia, BFS and antifluoride group stuff? Skeletal fluorosis shouldn't be a concern for 1ppm. Periodontitis may be. Neurotoxic effects I think are more so.

[ans]

I agree. I also think Prof Lennon of the BSF also has credibilty issues as an independent scientific expert. Similarly info obtained from BSF is also suspect. I think there is total crap from the anti-fluoride lobby also, and one has to approach all such info with great scepticisim.

 

Of course, which is why this this thread for some is just a Google Battle. I'm far more inclined to form an opinion based on someone who, well, actually has one of their own and not one quoted from a random blokey with a dodgy certificate.

 

Information from the Internet should be used to augment your opinion, not dictate it.

[saveourwater]

a random blokey with a dodgy certificate.

 

Are you making reference to Mr Packington?

[ans]

Nope. It's a general observation about the internet being littered with hundreds of so-called 'experts' who attach worthless credentials to their name. No matter what your view on pretty much any topic, you'll find some 'expert' who supports it.

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that I put a lot more stock in the views of someone who has taken the information and interpreted it themselves as opposed to someone who just cut and pastes someone elses words. And that goes for whatever side of the argument they're on.

[VinnieK]

Thanks for that annonymous quote taken from another website LINK

 

Do you refute the claims made? The qualification from an online US university for example?

 

To be fair, Drexel isn't an online university: It's a fairly good private university that happens to offer some of its courses online. The Certificate in Toxicology, however, is a poor qualification for a supposed "independent scientific advisor". The Certificate has two units on toxicology (the other two are on industrial hygiene), and, in terms of credit points, is roughly equivalent to a quarter of the masters degree they're taken from: It's intended as a basic professional and vocational qualification, nothing more.

[saveourwater]

To be fair, Drexel isn't an online university: It's a fairly good private university that happens to offer some of its courses online. The Certificate in Toxicology, however, is a poor qualification for a supposed "independent scientific advisor". The Certificate has two units on toxicology (the other two are on industrial hygiene), and, in terms of credit points, is roughly equivalent to a quarter of the masters degree they're taken from: It's intended as a basic professional and vocational qualification, nothing more.

 

Wednesday 13 February 2008 17:12

yorkpackington

I wish to refute the allegation by blogger 31:Coleshill 74 that I am not competent to represent the NPWA in rational debate concerning the truth about the many evident dangers and the overall lack of dental efficacy in preventing childhood caries associated with drinking water fluoridation. My first degree was MA Chemistry (Oxon) Cl II Hons. I also spent several years in postgraduate research in inorganic and, latterly, corrosion studies before spending the next eleven years teaching science in a Yorkshire preparatory school. Wishing to return to a scientific career, I subsequently completed the St. Bartholomew's Postgraduate Medical School's 1-year Advanced Postgraduate Certificate in Toxicology and Open University Courses. Having contributed a short paper to an NPWA AGM on the joint hazards of consuming drinking water contaminated with both fluoride ions and aluminium ions, I was awarded a grant by the Safe Water Trust in 1998 to study the well-known phenomenon of excessive neonatal mortality in the West Midlands in the context of fluoridation. A preliminary account of this work has been published in the Autumn 2007 Newsletter of 'Foresight'. As a member of the Executive Committee of NPWA I accept that perhaps it is strictly incorrect to describe myself, in this specific context, as an Independent Science Adviser; rather I remain one of NPWA's many science advisers. I do not believe that Prof. Cheng would consider himself an authority on these matters, though Prof Vyvyan Howard or Dr Peter Mansfield might well have been approached for their contributions to this PM debate.

submitted by Ian Packington MA [Yorkpackington]

 

LINK

[VinnieK]

I wish to refute the allegation by blogger 31:Coleshill 74 that I am not competent to represent the NPWA in rational debate concerning the truth about the many evident dangers and the overall lack....

 

 

Thanks for clearing things up. There are still things that need to be pointed out though:

 

1. The MA he refers to isn't a true master's degree in the sense of having followed graduate study or research: the Oxford MA is an honourary title that's applied for after completing an undergraduate degree there. No exam or extra work is required, just a cheque for the title and some stamps for the envelope.

 

2. The St Bartholomew's qualification is similar in its target audience to that at Drexel - a primarly vocational qualification that offers a broad introduction into the subject.

 

So in sum total he's got an undergraduate degree in Chemistry, a 1 year certification course, and a few years' worth of unspecified experience as a postgrad researcher 11 years ago. This isn't the CV of a credible or authoritative source on a matter as specific as fluoride in the water supply, or even really as a generic advisor on science.

 

Compare his resumé with the usual requirements for entering even the lowest rung of academia:

 

A 2:1/1st class undergraduate degree (preferably a four year degree, or a three year degree combined with a proper master's these days)

A PhD

A couple of years experience as a Post Doctoral researcher - postgrad work wont cut it.

A record of papers published in respectable, peer reviewed journals (having one accepted by a pressure group to talk about at their AGM doesn't count) and of attracting grants from the major funding bodies.

 

Packington has at very most one of these (and perhaps not even that: traditionally Oxbridge combined 2:2 and 2:1 into one second class rating, for all we know he just about scraped the lower category). In other words, he's not even qualified to enter a basic career in academic research, much less advise on or evaluate it (waving his nominal MA round the place at the end of his name doesn't help him appear any more authoritative either).

[ballaughbiker]

Saveourwater - Just returned after twenty three hours to be swamped by unsubstantiated information but I should really like to know if you would object to imbibing natural F- at say, 0.75ppm? I don't want any links to waffly papers from self appointed experts with suspect qualifications, I just want to know if you would stay living in the place that had 1ppm of natural fluoride?

 

Sked - I'm sorry for appearing trite but it seemed a completely reasonable point to mention "drug trials" of thousands of years. I don't regard it as a drug but that's a matter of opinion and another whole new ethical debate.

 

The ill effects you mention from drinking natural fluoride relate to a huge intake of the ion which is just not possible with the natural levels in the UK. At least 10ppm (and in reality more like 20+ ppm)is required to see these effects. It was the UK that I was referring to in my admittedly broad observation.

 

I feel that your lack of first hand knowledge of the havoc rampant caries can cause is apparent from the remark that all this is to apparently save or or two kids one or two fillings. I feel you may have under estimated the real problem greatly. I'll risk being trite again when I repeat that (in certain sections of the population) dental caries is an extremely common painful, distressing and disfiguring disease whose effects last a lifetime. It is an utter disgrace that we are still taking some kids to near death to remove lots of rotten teeth before they are 5. I've witnessed it first hand and its a horrible experience for all concerned especially the children being operated on. Whats even more of a scandal is that this common and expensive disease is completely preventable. Its incidence is reducing but its still far from becoming insignificant. The neurotoxic compounds I have in my mouth as a result of this are much more than a risk that that from fluoride. However by saying that I'm not dismissing those risks.

 

I think the rest of your long post does however have some merit and you make valid points. I'm just wondering about this fluoride increasing the risk of periodontitis though?

[saveourwater]

It is an utter disgrace that we are still taking some kids to near death to remove lots of rotten teeth before they are 5. I've witnessed it first hand and its a horrible experience for all concerned especially the children being operated on.

 

It sounds like you’re describing bottle decay Ballaughbiker, fluoridation has not been proven to prevent such decay as you well know so why the emotive story?

 

Saveourwater - Just returned after twenty three hours to be swamped by unsubstantiated information but I should really like to know if you would object to imbibing natural F- at say, 0.75ppm? I don't want any links to waffly papers from self appointed experts with suspect qualifications, I just want to know if you would stay living in the place that had 1ppm of natural fluoride?

 

There’s little point answering your hypothetical question regarding ingestion of 0.75ppm natural fluoride as I live on the IOM, and we have a level of around 0.03ppm.