Public Meeting - Water Fluoridation

[ans]

You could always try a hypothetical answer. I believe that's the point of the question...

[Chinahand]

This thread is rapidly showing how debate can be swamped by the over-zealous determined to use whatever means they can to stop a policy, which no matter what they just don't want at a gut-level.

 

I've basically given up - evolution deniers, vacination deniers, aids deniers, climate change deniers, 911 conspirators and now water-fluoridization. There are very real issues about how a society deals with complex problems when one side of the debate just will not accept emperical evidence. Cherry picking science to make your case isn't science.

 

Millions upon millions of people drink fluorinated water. Some unfortunate souls live in areas where the levels of fluorine are dangerous - guess what poverty means large segments of the world's population don't have access to safe drinking water. There is an underfunded but important research effort attempting to see how the lives of these people are affected and can be improved, but just because fluoride is dangerous at a certain level it does not mean it’s dangerous at lower levels - think about alcohol folks!

 

Save-our-Water etc have tried to use the York report and other papers to pass on their distortions - but when you actually read the details you find what they are saying and what the science is saying are totally different.

 

Saveourwater just quotes Mr Packington as saying there are dangers - well what are they? He doesn't answer the question - why because he knows that it is unmeasurable. Researchers have spent 50 years doing wide-scale multivariate analyses of epidemiology and at 2 or 3 sigma there is no systematic evidence of ill effects when using fluoride at the levels recommended - triple that level; yes there are issues, but that is irrelevent to the debate unless you want to go and live in rural Gansu China and drink out of a aquifer.

 

Now at 2 or 3 sigma there will be false positives - and all the research done indicates that they are false positives, no larger follow up studies have been able to replicate the effects - AND maybe at 4 or 5 sigma there are genuine health issues - but this is where a society has to way up risks verses benefits. Science can't measure to 4 or 5 sigma - the numbers of people involved are statistically tiny and are multiple times fewer than people dying from such things as general anaesthetic during a dental procedure.

 

Saveourwater etc make great play of the fact the incidence of people with no fillings or caveties whatsoever has become less correlated with fluorination as fluoride has become available from other sources - the irony that they aren't troubled by fluoride in tooth paste or mouth wash should be noted. But the relevence for the Isle of Man isn't the number of people who are cavity free - its the average number of cavities. And there the science is clear - water fluorination reduces the number of fillings children need.

 

I am really disheartened seeing all the distortions, heat and noise generated about a minor public health issue which has successfully saved many millions of pounds/dollars/yen and euros around the world in reduced dental care and saved millions of children having their teeth drilled and filled; its also saved a tiny number of lives due to children not needing general anaesthetics.

 

There is no empirical evidence of any serious health risks at the regulated fluoride levels and clear benefits. The trouble is saveourwater and his ilk don’t care: they don’t want it, don’t like it and don’t care what the science says.

 

Science has great difficulty fighting emotion as this thread clearly shows.

[Skeddan]

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'm just wondering about this fluoride increasing the risk of periodontitis though?

 

ballaughbiker - I hope I didn't seem facetious or derogatory in any way in the reply - it was not meant to be, and I hope I did not give you any reason to think that I thought the point was trite or anything of the kind. The point you raised does deserve serious consideration which I sought to give. I used 'longest drug trials of history' as a convenient shorthand to discuss evaluation of such evidence, not in any other way - and certainly wasn't meant to be snide or sarcastic. Sorry if it gave that impression - or you felt this from anything else.

 

I also agree that whether or not F is a drug in this respect is arguable (again it was shorthand to consider as such with regard to the point you raised). I think it depends on context - and saw this in terms of how might be treated in administering this substance in a scientific study - e.g. in a psychology or neuroscience experiment or study. Also non-nutritional supplements (e.g St Johns wort) etc are increasingly being treated as pharma substances - e.g. in Aus and NZ. I also find it hard to categorise otherwise - a chemical artificially added for therapeutic health benefits which has certain effects. It can also be regarded as a contaminant (or not) a toxin (or not) - depending on context and discipline (e.g. a neurotoxin but not a toxic substance in other fields). The consideration of F 'as being' a drug is one which I think is a valid way of thinking about this in terms of ethical considerations and also statistical thresholds. (It didn't seem particularly important whether or not it is regarded as a drug in consideration of the evidence of possible ill effects from natural high F - hence my using this sloppy shorthand without debating the question).

 

Yes - there is absolutely an important point about excessively high natural F and problems. This is important to remember and a very valid point and one I should have noted in responding to teh broader evidence from non-UK areas with high F. I go along with there not being clear and conclusive evidence from natural F in equivalent concentrations - and dosage is always critically important to consider in looking at studies. (Nevertheless I think that lack of evidence still cuts both ways, and there is no clear evidence it is safe - which given neurotoxicity I believe there should be).

 

You are right that I do not have first hand knowledge or appreciation of the problems of caries which I do accept is a serious one in IoM. I hope I did not say 'one or two kids' (I think I made mention of 40% prevalence as example). The one or two fillings was what I took to be average from the 2003 report figures on DFMT. Averages are not everything and some children may suffer far far worse of course.

 

I was also serious about proper modelling and evaluation in that respect. To give an analogy, X-rays might present a minimal risk and lead to problems in a tiny minority, but the risk is acceptable given the benefit. If hypothetically they provided a treatment for caries, it might be legitimate to consider even if there is a small risk of serious problems in a handful of cases. On the other hand the ethical argument kicks in - that treatment ought to be by consent.

 

I also take the view that mercury fillings etc. present a risk - and from the outset have felt that this may be even more so that water fluoridation. There are alternatives though - and it is another matter as to whether toxic fillings are good practice.

 

BTW I have three fillings - two white ones from caries in molars and root canal work in bottom front tooth chipped in a fight when I was a child. The latter has caused me endless problems - with an abscess, at least 7 dental operations, and ongoing mild-moderate 'discomfort' that is a constant to this day. I've had more intense pain from work on that tooth than about anything I have experienced - except being stung by a scorpion. More so than appendicitis. That's from just one filling. I can't really say whether I'd trade that for e.g. dyslexia, autism, or kidney disease - I don't think so. Would I trade it for a 1/100,000 chance of those or something else. I honestly don't know, and certainly wouldn't like to make that decision for others. I'd rather not have either the problem or the risk.

 

It does seem that the problem in IoM requires efforts in improving support for primary dental care - perhaps even junior 'barefoot' oral hygienists working in simple and basic but hygienic field clinics. Certainly better education and I'm sure you would have many informed suggestions as to what can and should be done. Ultimately the state is responsible for children, and it is worrying that there seems to be lack of proper care exercised to protect children against such harm. I think you would agree that it should be possible to have good dental standards without water fluoridation. It might require a bit more - but equally it will not expose children to risk of potentially serious harmful effects which cannot yet be discounted.

 

I also think the hypothetical question you put to saveourwater entirely valid - and the seriousness of concerns over water fluoridation is important. To answer it myself - I would stay in a place with fluoridated water. However I would prefer the water to not be fluoridated; I would not use a fluoride toothpaste if another were to hand (but would otherwise). If I had young children or my partner were pregnant or planning on this, I would certainly go to lengths to always use a fluoride filter whenever possible, and be wary of ingestion of fluoride in places outside the home. If I found F levels were 0.75ppm I would not drop everything to rush out to get a filter and only use bottled water until then. However I would keep my eye out for one and would get one if only to reduce fluoride ingestion as much as possible. I'm not tinfoil hat about this - but evidence does give rise for concern - e.g. how F can accumulate in the pineal gland and hippocampus. I myself can deal with dental plaque and caries with good oral hygiene - the kind of problems that F might cause cannot be easily addressed. I don't have money to burn, but I'd probably pay an extra $5-10 GBP a month for an alternative water supplier in order not to have it, and twice that to be sure of always having water which is free of fluoride (e.g. in local restaurants, cafes, water fountains etc.)

 

The periodontitis risk was from the paper in journal I gave link to earlier. There are some questions from lack of detail on F concentrations that I have about this. However I note how priodontitis seems to be highly prevalent in USA. I know little about dentistry (apart from pain) and so cannot evaluate this - e.g. in comparison to other countries - and whether the risk is only due to excessivae F and poor dental hygiene etc.

 

As mentioned elsewhere I don't consider skeletal fluorosis to be an issue with 1ppm concentrations. What I feel are issues I think may need to be spelt out a bit more - hopefully without seeming like scaremongering. I'd appreciate your views if you would take the time to look over some of the papers in the journal linked to (also needless to say, you should look at funding and editorial board of this and other such publications). I'd be happy to give you my own take on these - though you would have to remember I am not an expert in this field, a great deal is outside the fields I have studied, and I am not a neurobiologist - so this should be treated only as a layman's viewpoint.

 

The ethical debate is something else again. I'd think you and I might be in broad agreement over this. I some ways I think this is the core critical point in the whole matter, and is an especially important point that should not be overlooked.

[saveourwater]

The end of February will see the end of the governments 12 month information awareness campaign (though they originally announced the plan for fluoridation in September 2003), after that they plan to consult the people of the IOM on the issue via an NOP (or similar) telephone poll. Though no doubt the Department will try to squeeze a few more months out by consulting in April or May.

 

We believe there will be a leading question in the poll similar to this one: -

 

Do you think fluoride should be added to the water supply if it can reduce tooth decay?

 

We think a fairer question would be: -

 

Do you want the IOM to artificially fluoridate the water supply?

 

So pretty soon it looks as though the government will get the answer they want anyway by way of a leading question via a small telephone poll, then it will go to the Minster for approval, then to CoMin and then to Tynwald. It can be stopped at each stage but eventually there would have to be a change in the law to allow fluoridation to go ahead.

 

After 5 years of campaigning we will see what the 1,000 or so people polled have to say on the matter, then the Minister will decide on whether or not to take the matter further.

 

Let’s just wait and see what happens, because both campaigns have pretty much run their course now. We have tried our best as a grassroots campaign with a very small core of committed people, and very low budget coming mainly from my own pocket going against the DHSS with all their resources. All we could ever try and do was raise awareness on the issue and hopefully we have achieved at least that, despite the odds being stacked massively against us.

 

It’s very easy for other people to throw accusations at our group but I stand by everything we have said and put out and people can make up their own minds. One thing I will say however is that it is very interesting to note that the most vocal protagonists on here never appear at the public meetings (or if they do they are silent). If they really want to question the science being offered why not do it in the proper setting against one of our invited speakers?

 

I have no interest in naturally fluoridated water, Chinese aquifiers, fluoride toothpaste, mouthwash, tablets or drops. Some of these are consumer choice others don’t affect the IOM with our very low natural levels of fluoride.

 

What concerns our group is whether or not the Manx water supply should be artificially fluoridated.

 

Whether or not the Department has played fair over the past 5 years, whether or not they have downplayed things like fluorosis and other real and associated health risks.

 

Whether or not the Department intends to use a registered pharmaceutical grade product or industrial waste product to fluoridate the Manx water supply.

 

And perhaps most importantly of all whether or not any government has a right to mass medicate any or all of a people.

 

The ‘science’ can be argued over forever, but until the fluoridating governments commit to undertaking proper, independent large scale studies into ‘all’ the now well known and publicised health effects there will be no real answers either way.

 

There will however remain serious ethical and fundamental human rights issues over medicating a population.

 

The debate is nearly over and the people will soon be left to decide, then it is up to the Minister and Tynwald to have the final say, as it should be.

[The Voice of Reason]

We believe there will be a leading question in the poll similar to this one: -

 

Do you think fluoride should be added to the water supply if it can reduce tooth decay?

 

We think a fairer question would be: -

 

Do you want the IOM to artificially fluoridate the water supply?

 

Would there be any other way?

 

The unneccessary use of the word "artificially" would IMO be a bit of a scare tactic and would in itself and influence the vote the other way as much as the leading question referred to above.

[Skeddan]

There is no empirical evidence of any serious health risks at the regulated fluoride levels and clear benefits.

I agree.

 

Chinahand - as I'm sure you appreciate the above is different from saying:

 

"There is conclusive empirical evidence there are no serious health risks at the regulated levels"

 

Q1: can you clarify if the latter is your view also.

 

Q2: can you clarify what you mean by 'serious health risk'. (e.g. does ADHD, autism, and memory and learning disorders count as a 'serious health risk'?).

 

If 'Yes' to Q1 and 'Yes' to these examples being 'serious health risks', then please could you refer me to these studies - I'd be especially interested in the ones on ADHD. I've not come across these in any literature review or my own search of medline psyinfo etc., but not everything is published electronically, I haven't looked at this for a couple of years, and don't currently have subscription access,

 

If ADHD, autism is not in your view a serious health risk, what account do you think should be taken of these? If, hypothetically, the explosion of ADHD and autism in the US were in fact related to long term water fluoridation (e.g. exposure during gestation), should that not nevertheless be a concern?

 

Would you, for example, think the clear benefits, economic and otherwise, outweigh a possibility of e.g. 15% prevalence of ADHD and 1% autism? If not, then should such things which are not 'serious health risks' also be studied?

 

Would you seriously want to claim all such possible linkages have been thoroughly investigated? i.e. that there is conclusive empirical evidence from studies of water fluoridation to reject the hypothesis that (for example) exposure to F at 1ppm during gestation can lead to genetic abnormalities in people with a certain genotype effecting expressivity of genes such as NTRK3 in turn effecting changes in locus coeruleus and which thus gives rise to what is seen in various neurocognitive disorders. If this really is the case, then that kind of research study sounds way cool - I'm sceptical, but if this is so, I'd really really like to see the design of the relevant studies which can eliminate such possibilities and deal with the difficulties one normally encounters.

 

Alternatively are you simply stating that there is no evidence of any serious health risk at regulated levels (but no evidence it is completely safe, and it remains possible that at regulated levels it might have a significant effect on things other than teeth - such as DNA, neurotransmitters, parts of the brain, behaviour, learning, cognitive ability etc. etc.?)

[ballaughbiker]

Saveourwater (going back quite a few posts) I was not referring to bottle caries at all. This affects the front teeth in very young children. I have witnessed many GA sessions where all deciduous ( baby) molars have been removed from a five year old. It is an emotive story and if you had seen it week in week out you might feel just as emotional. What puzzles me is that a lot came from the part of the island where the local dentist says he doesn't see a caries problem. All I will say to that is "it does not compute". I don't know of course, but the only reasonable explanation might be they might be going somewhere else. If it were not for the serious nature of this debate, I should have fallen about laughing when he came on the radio. Having seen the trauma some kids go through because of dental caries, I found it far from amusing.

 

Btw, none of your posts have been the slightest bit emotive have they?

 

 

Skeddan - another reasonable post (unlike some antis on here) the gist of which I have some sympathy with. I have had a lifetime (over half a century) of complex expensive dentistry on most teeth in my mouth in an effort to avoid plastic teeth. The skill of my dentists and my perseverance has made this possible but I still honestly believe that if I had imbibed fluoridated water from birth, things would have been very different. My wife has suffered similarly but our 18 year old who had fluoride drops has no fillings. Can that be pure chance? I personally don't think so, however I should not want to force this idea on the rest of the population if they didn't want it. It sounds like you have had a lot of work on one tooth. Imagine that on lots of teeth and I'm very pleased you agree that dental caries is not a trivial affair. I obviously misunderstood your earlier post, sorry.

 

I fully agree that with good oral hygiene and a sensible diet, there would be no need for fluoridated water. That's an ideal world which is unlikely to happen. I only wish it would. People like sugary food and kids don't see the problem as a problem until they're up all night screaming with toothache. The years of high sucrose intake is just not linked to the pain that started an hour ago and won't go away. I've witnessed dentists and hygienists trying to tell parents (usually very nicely and not in an authoritative or demeaning way) what they can do to stop the problem. In quite a few cases there is little interest despite them being otherwise very caring parents. Whose fault is it that this problem continues and continues in a certain sector of every population? I wish I knew the answer. Despite what most people think, dentists apparently do not like pulling out rotten teeth and this is especially the case in children.

 

Chinahand says it all in one sentence really "science has great difficulty in fighting emotion". How true and how this thread more than any other on MF has shown this. ( I am conveniently forgetting the phone mast nonsense at Onchan surgery)

[Skeddan]

In quite a few cases there is little interest despite them being otherwise very caring parents. Whose fault is it that this problem continues and continues in a certain sector of every population?

ballaughbiker - this reminds me a bit of the Edward de Bono notion of Granny knitting and problem with a cat playing with the yarn, and having a toddler pen to solve the problem with. The 'obvious' solution is put the cat in the pen. The lateral thinking one is to put the granny in the pen. Hmmm....

 

How many children are there like this? Can they be identified? - I'd think so.

 

Why not have fluoride drop dispensation system installed individually in their water supplies (by court order for child protection if need be). This could be pharma grade, and would surely be cheaper (or at least not significantly more expensive) than dumping tons into everyone's water supply. Not an ideal solution to my mind, but better than having fluoridated water ingested by pregnant women and infants - and for people throughout their lives...

 

At least this way you target the children with high risk of serious dental caries - if fluoridation is effective for this category, then to my mind it might outweigh the risks where other alternatives are not workable. (I'm maybe more middle of the road leaning to side of caution than pro or anti). If people don't want it being imposed on this way then they have to start taking responsibility for their children. I don't have any ethical or legal gripe with such a solution if there are no other dental strategies that are workable in such cases. I'd also think in such cases the risk is outweighed by the kinds of problems you have highlighted. Also I have no problem with someone requesting such a system for themselves and family. Perhaps this could be produced at lowish cost and simply fitted into the water meter or whathaveyou, and topped up at meter readings. The details can be left to the tech-heads, but the principle seems good to me.

 

As for adults who don't look after their teeth - well if they are not mentally incapacitated in some way and have been properly taught about this - then tough. If they have fillings and pain, too bad; they only have themselves to blame.

 

How many children actually might be at risk in this way in IoM? 1000 at any one time?? Just over 1% of the population?? I dont think the entire populace should have to ingest fluoride for the rest of their lives when this could offer a simpler better solution.

[ballaughbiker]

How many at any one time? might not be even a thousand. I could have told you 15 years ago but I don't know now as I have no access to the data. The problem is that when they present at 5 with a mouth full of rot its a few years too late for fluoride drops whatever to have an optimal effect. The first molars start to form at birth and these come through at around six. These are the teeth most at risk and having four of those out at say 9 because they've gone rotten is a big procedure.

 

I'm opposed to any form of compulsion on any level and therefore think making 'at risk' kids have this is nearly as bad as making us all have it. As for adults, maybe you're being a bit hard on them. They were probably completely put off dental treatment as children because the first thing they ever had done was..... well we've already discussed that.

[Chinahand]

There is no empirical evidence of any serious health risks at the regulated fluoride levels and clear benefits.

I agree.

 

Chinahand - as I'm sure you appreciate the above is different from saying:

 

"There is conclusive empirical evidence there are no serious health risks at the regulated levels"

 

Q1: can you clarify if the latter is your view also.

 

Q2: can you clarify what you mean by 'serious health risk'. (e.g. does ADHD, autism, and memory and learning disorders count as a 'serious health risk'?).

 

 

You cannot prove a negative - but after something like 50 years of use over populations measured in millions with large scale epidemiological testing, lab tests etc the conclusion of the scientific community is that there is no evidence of any serious health risks.

 

This isn't a subject that has been ignored its been a battle ground in the same way MMR is etc. With all the noise from the anti-fluoridation people scientists have investigated and investigated - as this debate shows there are life long careers to be made in this field. And the anti's are left in the wilderness without evidence.

 

They latch on to studies that can just measure a tiny percentage increase in a rare cancer and shout that this proves how dangerous fluoridation is. The fact that further studies discount the effect is ignored; as is the fact that these studies are really showing how little measurable effect there is. For 99.9999999% of health concerns fluoride is not an issue. For the other 0.000001% the effect is so small the best science that can be done can hardly detect it.

 

And Yes I would definitely included ADHD, autism, memory and learning disorders as serious health risks. As far as I am aware from reading up on this topic since saveourwater et al started raving about its dangers there are no statistically valid links between these conditions and fluoridation.

 

Now I've said that I expect some study to be produced with a great flourish [come on saveourwater - where's the beef] - I'd be glad to read it - there is a tiny chance it will be cutting edge and recently published with more work being done, more than likely it will be old and the follow up studies have discounted it.

 

As has been said ad nuseum, fluoridation has been around for over half a century. An awful lot of the increased reporting of ADHD, autism etc are down to increased diagnosis and not increased prevelence and these increases have come about since the 1970s - quite simply I do not believe there is any link, but belief isn't the issue - where is the evidence?

[Freggyragh]

An awful lot of the increased reporting of ADHD, autism etc are down to increased diagnosis and not increased prevelence and these increases have come about since the 1970s

 

That is not true. I don't have any opinion on a connection to F - but the misdiagnosis argument is bogus. There has been a large rise in cases of autism across the developed world.

 

You're right about science fighting emotion. I don't want flouride in my water - I get it in my toothpaste, and if I thought I needed more I would buy drops. I don't care if scientists say it is safe - I don't want it. I have a mouthfull of fillings becuase I ate an unhealthy amount of sweets when I was younger and didn't brush my teeth as often as I should have. I blame it on my lifestyle, not lack of flouride. None of my kids have fillings - but then again, then didin't consume the same amounts of refined sugar when they were young as I did. I also made sure they cleaned their teeth.

[Skeddan]

How many at any one time? might not be even a thousand. I could have told you 15 years ago but I don't know now as I have no access to the data. The problem is that when they present at 5 with a mouth full of rot its a few years too late for fluoride drops whatever to have an optimal effect. The first molars start to form at birth and these come through at around six. These are the teeth most at risk and having four of those out at say 9 because they've gone rotten is a big procedure.

 

What in you view are the main 'risk' years - 3-12, 6-9 ? Can the at risk children be identified - e.g. dental checks in pre-school etc. ?

I'm opposed to any form of compulsion on any level and therefore think making 'at risk' kids have this is nearly as bad as making us all have it.

I don't really agree here. If the kids are suffering terrible pain and trouble because of parental neglect, then an intervention seems perfectly reasonable. Given the suffering inflicted, it seems really not much different from child abuse. It needn't even require a change in the law.

 

I also think part of the problem may have to do with the communication as you describe it - the dentist patiently and politely explaining to otherwise caring parents who take no notice. People are visual creatures - marketing and advertising is done most effectively by visual means. If the dentist were to show the parent a video with a segment with the 5 year old with mouth full of rot and the gory details of the dental procedure, I think that might be a lot more effective - more so than 'blah blah blah' which is what they are probably hearing while thinking about what to cook for dinner or worrying how much the bill might be. A 3 minute info film shown to parents n schools and at dentists etc. might reduce the 'risk kids' category enormously.

 

Freggyragh's post shows how parents can ensure children have decent dental health without needing water fluoridation. If there is evidence of parental neglect, then why not shock, scare, disturb or whatever else needed to drive home the point that is otherwise being missed.

 

(When I was little my grandmother told me how she had to have all her teeth removed, and how important it was to always brush one's teeth twice a day - however much one might not want to - and not to be lazy about it. It wasn't traumatic - it was effective, and I remember that still).

[Skeddan]

You cannot prove a negative

I once had to study Karl Popper etc. and don't propose a big debate on that issue - rather it can be shown that there is not a link by studies which show that there is no correlation or statistical relationship. It is a big difference between saying that you cannot prove something is 100% safe and saying that it must be assumed to be safe, and because you 'cannot prove a negative' we won't bother with any studies to look at that. Where are the studies that have done the in depth research on whether there is a link with X and which accept the hypothesis or reject it and accept the alternate or null hypothesis?

 

after something like 50 years of use over populations measured in millions with large scale epidemiological testing, lab tests etc the conclusion of the scientific community is that there is no evidence of any serious health risks.

"No evidence of any serious health risks." Again! This is NOT the same as saying it is safe. There was also once "no evidence of any serious health risks" with asbestos, and dioxin.

 

I have not yet seen a single independent scientific study which has said that water fluoridation is safe and presents no health hazzards. Are there any you know of?

 

Now you say "quite simply I do not believe there is a link, but belief isn't the issue - where is the evidence?". This suggests that you are going to continue to believe it is safe until you see evidence to disconfirm this opinion. I am not convinced either way as yet, though the evidence I have seen suggests that it is far from unlikely that there are risks. It is not a matter of belief - it is a matter of prudence that I think that one should err on the side of caution, especially given what is known about this neurotoxin. In your approach it was sound to adopt asbestos and dioxin and stick with this until there was conclusive evidence this had harmful effects. I'm not at all impressed at the 'rationality' of this stance.

 

after something like 50 years of use ....

...

ADHD, autism etc ... increases have come about since the 1970s -

Hmmm... do the maths and its quite interesting, isn't it.

 

Now I've said that I expect some study to be produced ... I'd be glad to read it - there is a tiny chance it will be cutting edge and recently published with more work being done,

 

I have already given links to a journal (April-June 2007) with a very good study on neurotoxic effects of fluoride. This by itself is very compelling evidence that it is not safe - even at 0.75ppm, especially when taken in context of some of the other papers in that journal, and this is evidence that water fluoridation can present a serious health risk. Please do read it, and other papers in the same journal.

 

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/402/files/...n2_p00i-0vi.pdf

 

This bit of research is a good starting point:

 

- DOSE-DEPENDENT EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE ON NEUROCHEMICAL MILIEU IN THE HIPPOCAMPUS AND NEOCORTEX OF RAT BRAIN

 

You should also note the editiorial, which also has some useful refs to some relevant research on fluoride:

 

- FLUORIDE NEUROTOXICITY AND EXCITOTOXICITY/MICROGLIAL ACTIVATION: CRITICAL NEED FOR MORE RESEARCH

[Albert Tatlock]

Is it safe?

[Skeddan]

Is it safe?

 

 

(ooops shouldn't do that - might end up - )