Brainwash Mouthwash?

[Chinahand]

The only thing I'll say is that with something like 180 million americans drinking this stuff for time periods of up to 60 years, and 100 million not; with the US being in the most litigious country in the world, with massive torte penalties for misconduct; with major epidemeological studies tracking fluorodization then I find the claims of the anti's massively overblown. IF there are any ill effects - which I see no evidence of - it is at a level which is scarcely measurable; and that is not for want of trying.

 

And that also ignores the many many millions of people who have drunk naturally fluorinated water for millenia. The idea that Gateshead should be some area blighted by autism, ADHD, cancer and brittle bones compared to Newcastle just doesn't to me to have any basis in reality. But one area drinks fluorinated water and the other does not; and has done from the year dot because the fluoride is naturally in the water. General health statistics exist for these areas going back from Victorian times and earlier - epidemiologists would notice the differences - they haven't.

 

Saveourwater etc have spread scare stories which have very little basis in science. This is NOT an un-investigated area - I fully agree more research can be done - but name any area of science where this is not true.

 

The city of Los Angeles, San Fransisco etc have examined the evidence and do NOT think the precautionary principle should be applied. The York report showed that there would be something like on average 1 filling less per person as a result of fluoridation (this is off the top of my head, but I've quoted verbatum before the exact statistics). That is a significant statistically valid improvement in dental health.

 

And at what cost? I honestly cannot see it.

 

We put chlorine in the water to save us suffering from medical conditions. I do not see a significant difference in the case of fluoride.

 

But this debate is largely at the level of deliberate attempts to poison us with industrial pollutants - that is the tin hate brigade as far as I'm concerned. It is not an evidence based debate; it is scare stories, cherry picking and distorting evidence.

[Skeddan]

Chinahand, with respect, identifying possible hazzards is a very great deal more complex than you make out. I could go into some detail and examples - but won't do so for sake of not wanting to bore people with somewhat boring research methods, confounds, etc. which in any event would be limited only to the area I have experience in. Suffice it to say that when there are difficulties in even diagnosing and measuring auto-immune disorder, PCOS, sub-clinical hypothyroidism, ADHD, mild cognitive impairments, 'IQ' and the like the supposition that linkages with wF would have been apparent is fundamentally unsound.

 

It isclear that people don't immediately drop dead or get some manifest immediately diagnosable problem from drinking 1ppm wF. Long accumulation and foetal exposure mediated with dosage effect, preconditions and genetic susceptibilites and 'subtle' non-readily diagnosable 'syndromes' is another matter.

 

Secondly litigation requires a standard of proof - usually balance of probabilities in civil litigation of the kind you suggest. 'Air of reality' or 'reasonable suspicion' does not cut it. Reasonable suspicion that something might cause problems should be a concern and shouldn't be dismissed as 'scaremongering' or tinfoil hatted.

 

As I keep saying the US also has the most kids on psychoactive medication in the world - huge autoimmune problems, autism etc. Not a good example to cite as 'evidence' of wF being utterly safe beyond any reasonable suspicion.

 

I fully agree more research can be done - but name any area of science where this is not true.

 

IMO this is not good enough. Look again at argument made in previous post. There is a fundamental lack of adequate research beyond 'cancer' and bone problems. It would be a leap of faith. Fools rush in and all that. (No offence to our American friends in SF LA etc.)

[Chinahand]

We can go on and on about this, but there are serious attempts to look at how autism etc is distributed and why:

 

Rate of first recorded diagnosis of autism and other pervasive developmental disorders in United Kingdom general practice, 1988 to 2001

 

Does Autism Cluster Geographically? A Research Note

 

California's unequal distribution of autistics

 

I am very sceptical that fluorination has a significant effect and is being missed in epidemeological studies. This type of research is common - the databases are there to be trawled. As populations either drink fluorinated water or they don't differences would flag up easily.

[Declan]

Declan could you clarify your view on this. It seems as if you might be saying that there is no sound rational case & human rights considerations which can be made to argue against wF, and anyone against wF is a tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorist etc.? (But sparing people from such rants is good enough (rational?) reason to be against proposing wF??)

 

My opinion is -

 

1. If you are going to dump chemicals into the water supply you need a very good reason.

2. Therefore it should have been a simple matter of saying yes or no.

3. The Government are wrong to hold a consultation, because we pay them to make minor decisions.

4. No good reason has been suggested for putting chemicals in the water, therefore, it should have been dismissed out of hand immediately.

5. The campaign against is bonkers! They are finding halfbaked unscientific research, misinterpreting the results and turning it into a big conspiracy. They should be putting the onus onto the pro lobby to show there is a reason to do this.

[Lost Login]

Suffice it to say that when there are difficulties in even diagnosing and measuring auto-immune disorder, PCOS, sub-clinical hypothyroidism, ADHD, mild cognitive impairments, 'IQ' and the like the supposition that linkages with wF would have been apparent is fundamentally unsound.

 

I often struggle to follow the thread of your argument but it seems that you are arguing that becacuse it is hard to diagnose disease A it is unsafe to state that Fluoridation is safe in respect of that disease because there might be a link if it was possible to a easily diagnose the disease and from that point finf a link and causation back to Fluoridation. That to me is a very weak argument as the same argument can be made to virtually anything i.e can we state that eating fresh organic fruit has no link with causing diseaseA. Your argument would be that no we can not because we can nor readily diagnose disease A. To me that is non sensical as it appears to be that you're argument is along the lines of yes presently there is no link between A & B, but that does not mean there is no link it just means we have not found any evidence for it. Does that not apply to virtually everything?

 

As I keep saying the US also has the most kids on psychoactive medication in the world - huge autoimmune problems, autism etc. Not a good example to cite as 'evidence' of wF being utterly safe beyond any reasonable suspicion.

 

Yes but is there any link? Do States were there is Fluoridation show a markedly different pattern to those that have no Fluoridation. Just because two things happen in a country does not nmean they are linked. America I believe is the most obese country in the World and it has increased overtime. Would you link this to Fluoridation. There has been an increase in car ownership in the US over the period that Fluoridation has been in place. Should we link this to fluoidation. I would say as it is clearly absurd but presumably you would not rule it out on the basis that it has not been proved there is no link?

 

I have to admit I am probably in principal in favour of water fluoridation as I believe the evidence shows it is beneficial to a level and the known side effects are minor, basically some mottling of teeth which is generally not noticeable. I question whether it is ethically right to add it to the water supply and that there other additional methods which could improve our dental hygiene. I have to admit that in general I would probably be anti fluoridation if these were the arguments that had been put forward against fluoridation as I am of the opinion that nothing should really be done or added to our drinking water except what is required to make it safe to drink.

 

However I dislike the way the anti fluoridation lobby have tried to in my eyes misrepresent science and scare monger. On that basis they have turned me from a potential supporter of the anti lobby to an opponent.

 

I am also with Declan on this even if we do not agree with what the decision should have been, but we elect and pay our politicians to make decisions with advice from professionals and evidence put before them. They should do what they believe is right and then stand or fall by those decisions. But it appears that they have not got the guts to do that so everytime there is a potentially contensious decision to be made they lack the back bone to make it, and say yes or no, without a public consultation.

 

As in this case the public consultation is not really a public consultation but it is the Government setting out their preferred position and then rather than having the balls to back that decision they want to see if it will be unpopular and possible cost MHK's votes in which case they then will withdraw.

 

It happened with all Island Speed limit consultation and it is happening again with Fluoridation. Ultimately like the majority of the population both in the Island and elsewhere in the world I expect that where the water is not fluoridtaed there is no great demand for it to be fluoridated and visa versa. Either way the to the majority of us it is not a great issue either way and we will just get on with it whatever and not give it a second thought. If the Government get themselves in a mess over this then as far as I am concerned they deserve everything coming to them as they have created the debate by abdicating their responsibility

[Chinahand]

Declan could you clarify your view on this. It seems as if you might be saying that there is no sound rational case & human rights considerations which can be made to argue against wF, and anyone against wF is a tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorist etc.? (But sparing people from such rants is good enough (rational?) reason to be against proposing wF??)

 

My opinion is -

 

1. If you are going to dump chemicals into the water supply you need a very good reason.

2. Therefore it should have been a simple matter of saying yes or no.

3. The Government are wrong to hold a consultation, because we pay them to make minor decisions.

4. No good reason has been suggested for putting chemicals in the water, therefore, it should have been dismissed out of hand immediately.

5. The campaign against is bonkers! They are finding halfbaked unscientific research, misinterpreting the results and turning it into a big conspiracy. They should be putting the onus onto the pro lobby to show there is a reason to do this.

 

I'm not sure about what you are saying about there being "no good reason has been suggested for putting chemicals in the water".

 

Areas with fluoride in their water have on average 2.25 fewer fillings per person than areas without it. The York report showed that this reduction is statistically valid and takes account of fluoride toothpaste use etc.

 

That's 180,000 fillings that will be saved on the Island (pop 80,000) over a generational change, and a saving that will continue in perpetuity.

 

Balaugh Biker has already posted about the risks involved in filling cavities - I'd like to compare statistics, but a non zero number of people will be saved from severe complications as a result of this. This number should be compared against any claims of increases in cancer, autism or whatever.

[Skeddan]

Chinahand - yes, autism is fairly straightforward to identify and diagnose (but) In any case I should have been clearer by stating 'autism spectrum' - sloppy - sorry. Non-specifics and syndromes are much harder. ADHD diagnosis (DSM IV) is quite at odds with having any coherent etiology and solid nosology (consider a syndrome called 'sneeze disorder' which might cover symptoms, but inclusive of hayfever, common colds, reaction to dust up the nose etc. But where diagnosis of sneezing is controversial, under diagnosed, over diagnosed, subjective, issues of access / socioeconomics, and has large regional variation (as may be shown in meta-analysis studies). Even if just looking for simple correlations, the trouble is frankly the data that is needed isn't there - or is confounded and - well basically crap. Data on wF IS there - it's the data for other variables which is the problem.

 

If that data were crystal clean and solid it would be a different matter - and I would agree with you. The type of databases required are not there as you seem to suggest (apart from - I assume on wF). If data was as good as would have to be for what you are arguing further studies might arguably be redundant - which is not what the MRC Report said - rather it said more research was required - and noted poor quality of what research there was etc.

 

If the Dunedin Longitudinal Study programme were being carried out extensively across US, Europe etc. with high consistency in measurements across territories this database might give something like some decent data to work with. If that were the case then you would almost certainly find some effect (because of very large sample size very very weak interactions appear even if almost completely minimal and really insignificant).

 

It's a bit tricky to discuss without knowing what background you may/may not have in research methods and stats- use of tech jargon vs. layman's language which is more readily understandable but may be inaccurate strictly speaking etc.. Do by all means PM me to swap relevant prof background etc. in confidence - as is probably best not posted on Internet (for reasons we touched on earlier).

 

BTW you say how 'autism etc.' is distributed. - could you clarify on the 'etc.' (I'd be genuinely interested in such data on auto-immune and other conditions - for which I am not aware of similar datasets).

[Declan]

Fewer cavities is not a good enough reason.

 

/edit that was to Chinahand, Skeddan nipped in with his pithy response whilst I was typing.

[Skeddan]

My opinion is -

 

1. If you are going to dump chemicals into the water supply you need a very good reason.

2. Therefore it should have been a simple matter of saying yes or no.

3. The Government are wrong to hold a consultation, because we pay them to make minor decisions.

4. No good reason has been suggested for putting chemicals in the water, therefore, it should have been dismissed out of hand immediately.

5. The campaign against is bonkers! They are finding halfbaked unscientific research, misinterpreting the results and turning it into a big conspiracy. They should be putting the onus onto the pro lobby to show there is a reason to do this.

 

Thanks Declan This makes your view a lot clearer.

 

1 & 2. Am I right in thinking 'a very good reason' would be a compelling reason such as prevention of cholera - i.e. something which would be issue of 'national emergency' type proportions? (which would override ethics of consent etc. as serious and real threat). Govt should then act as you say - not consult, but take proper steps to deal with it. I agree no 'very good reason' has been given of this nature - but what would constitute 'a very good reason' probably needs fleshing out a bit. (Just saw - "cavities is not a good enough reason" - possibly enough said - though DHSS might disagree - if so how would you justify that?)

 

3. Are you saying wF is a 'minor decision'? (I disagree). (Maybe you mean not national emergency type issue?)

 

4. As per 1&2 above.

 

5. Yes - I agree that much of campaign against is bonkers as you say (though not all - all parliamentary group against wF seems fairly sound). Re onus of proof - I think this is excellent point - IMO one of the most important yet made in the debate. I entirely agree onus should be put on pro lobby. Antis should not be engaged in trying to prove problems (which cannot be proved either way from current data), and so resorting to 'tinfoilism' - but should be taking stance that places onus as it should be - as you say. (I too have real problem with 'tinfoilist' nature of much of the anti campaign). Question is also what standard of proof should be required of pros in showing it is safe, economic, necessary, ethical, and to show other alternatives are not viable.

 

My view of 'precautionary principle' is essentially the same - until proven by pros - on who onus of proof should be - wF should not be accepted.

 

Other than 3 am I right in thinking there isn't too much divergence in your view and mine? (if there is, could you perhaps clarify main points on this where we disagree as you see it).

[Chinahand]

BTW you say how 'autism etc.' is distributed. - could you clarify on the 'etc.' (I'd be genuinely interested in such data on auto-immune and other conditions - for which I am not aware of similar datasets).

Geographic Clustering of ADHD in Children

Geographic Analysis of ADHD in Children: Milwaukee County

How about you type into Google "geographical distribution" and whatever complaint concerns you - that is all I have done and I am very sceptical of your claims that this type of research has not/cannot be done.

I am unclear what auto-immune diseases you mean. I tried Asthma, Lupus, eczema and Crohn's Disease - found articles on all four.

 

I do not think there is any need to get over technical on this. I have no background on this whatsoever - but have been friendly with medical researchers etc for many years, and for personal reasons follow research on a number of conditions. I put the etc there because I was confident my googling on "geographical distrubution autism" could be extended to other conditions - I remain confident that is so.

 

Fluoridation is such a clear variable to data mine on I find it inconceivable that it hasn't been included in similar studies to the above - it has been done with Bone Cancer why not in other areas (edited to add - water hardness is analysed for these types of conditions: why would fluoride be so different?) - the fact is negative results are rarely published.

[Chinahand]

1. If you are going to dump chemicals into the water supply you need a very good reason.

But many chemicals are dumped into the water supply - LINK - these are then controlled at strictly defined levels - what is the difference?

 

Why should Fluoride be different from Iodine, Bromine, Ozone, Potassium permangamate, chlorine dioxide etc. All of these are probably dumped into the water supply at the moment - and for good reason.

 

While looking at water treatment additives I found this link which shows the claims about fluoridation additives being full of dangerous chemicals is - guess what - basically bull!

[nipper]

- and for good reason.

 

Nice qualification there.

[Declan]

Because you poke yourself in one eye, should you poke yourself in the other? The logic in your post escapes me.

[Chinahand]

Because you poke yourself in one eye, should you poke yourself in the other? The logic in your post escapes me.

 

In what way is any of this poking yourself in the eye?

 

The additives are put in to TREAT the water - these chemicals MAY have side effects - my goodness are we going to have to have exactly the same stupid arguement about every chemical I've listed (can't wait for the chlorine nutters to arrive - suspect they are already here though - chlorine is similar to fluorine!!). But the risks of these side effects is more than balanced by the rewards they provide in water treatment - so you are not poking yourself in the eye by adding these chemicals.

 

The exact same arguement applies to fluoride.

 

I genuinely don't understand why putting chlorine in your water to stop people getting E coli infections is any different than putting fluoride in to stop cavities. Both are medical conditions being treated by a water additive. An alternative would be not putting in the chlorine and asking everyone to boil their water before drinking it, filtering it or whatever.

 

Are people really saying we should do this based on the precautionary principle.

[Declan]

How are the two things (eColi and a filling) even remotely comparable?

 

As far as I can tell the argument for putting this stuff into water is that it will reduce the number of cavities. Is that it?