Brainwash Mouthwash?

[Chinahand]

I will ensure my children have access to the correct levels of fluoride to protect their teeth from tooth decay.

 

 

Lonan3 I presume you understand the concept of dosage?

 

Sodium Chloride - a seriously poisoness substance you sprinkle on your chips and which is vital to correct function of the body.

 

You show a picture of fluorosis - yes a problem - where there is no statistically valid evidence of an increase in this problem associated with fluoride at 1.0ppm compared to 0 pmm.

 

I posted these a bit ago. Please check out the relevent section of the York Report on Fluorosis:

 

 

 

Request to mods no matter what I do I can't get the attachements from this post to move to this post - help!

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).

[Albert Tatlock]

Barrrrrrrrrrffffffffffffffff!

 

Can we keep to the verbal descriptions please - I'm sure we've all seen the 'The Big Book of British Smiles':

 

[Lonan3]

I will ensure my children have access to the correct levels of fluoride to protect their teeth from tooth decay.

 

Precisely! I do not the state to force it on them for me!

[nipper]

I will ensure my children have access to the correct levels of fluoride to protect their teeth from tooth decay.

 

 

 

I will ensure my children clean their teeth twice a day especially before going to bed.

 

 

 

I will also ensure they aren't sucking on a can of Coke 2 or 3 times a day too. But you knew that anyway, didn't you.

[Chinahand]

I will ensure my children have access to the correct levels of fluoride to protect their teeth from tooth decay.

 

Precisely! I do not the state to force it on them for me!

Which is an entirely different issue compared to fluorosis or toxicity for which the York report can find no statistically valid data that adding fluoride at 1.0 ppm will cause a problem.

 

Of course not withstanding Skeddan's bumping into people in New Zealand - population drinking fluoride 57% cost effectiveness of fluorodation:

 

The results of the base case analysis showed fluoridation to be very economic for populations ranging from 1,000 to 300,000. In this range the net cost of fluoridation was negative – dental cost savings exceeded fluoridation costs. The financial break-even point – when the cost of fluoridation was equal to the dental cost savings – occurred for a population of between 800 and 900. However, as the analysis errs on the side of underestimating the benefits of fluoridation, the true break-even point may be considerably lower. For smaller communities, fluoridation may still be considered economic depending on the intangible value assigned to an averted decayed surface.

[Skeddan]

Lonan3 I presume you understand the concept of dosage?

Chinahand - do you understand this concept? You seem to be confusing dosage with concentration in the water supply. The more water at 1ppm you drink, the higher the dosage. These are not the same.

 

there is no statistically valid evidence of an increase in this problem associated with fluoride at 1.0ppm compared to 0 pmm.

No conclusive evidence perhaps. There is evidence - the higher the dosage the more serious the fluorosis. Small dosage can result in 'minor' fluorosis - it depends where you draw the line on what counts as 'flourosis' (and how you move the goalposts).

 

In the absence of any conclusive evidence on fluorosis and other possible hazards it is going to be a matter of opinion. Lonan3 has his opinion, you have yours.

 

I will ensure my children have access to the correct levels of fluoride to protect their teeth from tooth decay.

Chinahand, hopefully you will be doing other things besides this to ensure your children's dental health. I.e. all those things which would be sufficient to ensure they have caries-free teeth without fluoride. If you are not remiss in doing those things, then fluoride is redundant and will not reduce the number of fillings they will have (which should be zero even without fluoride if you ensure proper dental care for them).

 

Assuming Lonan3 is conscientious when it comes to the dental health and general health of his children, then it makes sense for him to ensure they don't receive fluoride which is of no benefit to them, particularly when this might cause minor fluorosis and there is no guarantee that it will not cause other problems or impairments.

 

I am sure you are equally conscientious when it comes to your children - that being a given, I find your view puzzling compared to Lonan3's.

[Lonan3]

Cost effectiveness appears to be all that anyone is really concerned about - no matter what substances need to be added to our water.

Proper dental care ought to be provided out of the contributions we make to the state funds.

Education about dental care - which has always been useless - should be revamped and made effective.

If dentists were a little less concerned about making fortunes from - often unnecessary - cosmetic processes, after having their education funded out of our taxes, there possibly wouldn't be any need to add toxic substances to our drinking water.

This is not about improving dental care.

This about a government selecting a cheap option that makes it appear to be doing something to correct the abysmal mess that its made of dental care on the island - with no concern whatsoever for any potential, long-term ill effects.

The manufacturers of bottled water must be positively orgasmic at the prospect of it!

[Chinahand]

This page from New Zealand has an informative take on fluoride and fluorosis - puts it into context, shows the types of mottling fluoridation at 1.0 ppm usually causes.

 

I disagree strongly that this arguement isn't about improving dental care.

 

And Lonan3's digs at dentists are simply low blows, and slightly out of character! Lonan3, I know some NHS dentists - they are dedicated people. Are you really making a general point, or in anger tarring an entire profession due to the malpractice of a tiny minority?

 

Re-doesage: I am absolutely happy that in a population where the fluoride content of the water is 1.0ppm the doseage people recieve will be such that significant health problems will not develop. There are mountains of evidence to show this, which also show that dental quality improves.

[BigDave]

I grew up in the West Midlands with fluoridated water. I can't recall anyone I know having fluorosis or even the local newspapers/TV reporting on it.

[Lonan3]

And Lonan3's digs at dentists are simply low blows, and slightly out of character! Lonan3, I know some NHS dentists - they are dedicated people. Are you really making a general point, or in anger tarring an entire profession due to the malpractice of a tiny minority?

My view is that, as long as we contribute to the health services, we should have as much right and as much opportunity to visit a dentist as we do to visit our GPs.

It is an area that the local health service neglected for many years - to the point when many of the local dentists went into private practice with charges that were beyond the means of most people.

Is it any wonder that there are problems with tooth decay?

Now, with 'Cut-back Eddie' in charge, and waiting lists that simply shouldn't exist, the great (cheap, cost-effective) panacea of adding fluoride to the drinking water is presented as if its the only thing that's been lacking for all these years!

Quite simply, we are being conned.

And those dentists making money off private practices should be compelled to take at least a percentage of NHS patients onto their books.

[Chinahand]

Fully 100% agree that this debate has nothing to do with dental provision. And I think you are wrong in implying that this is seen as a way of justifying a reduction in dental provision.

 

Who is saying that this is the ONLY thing that's been lacking - no one other than yourself I believe.

 

It will be ONE contributing factor.

[Lonan3]

I am suggesting that the govt/health service are promoting it simply as a smokescreen to hide the fact they cannot find a way to fund proper dental provision.

[Albert Tatlock]

From MR: Chemicals found on beach. I hope it's not flouride!!!

[Skeddan]

Which is an entirely different issue compared to fluorosis or toxicity for which the York report can find no statistically valid data that adding fluoride at 1.0 ppm will cause a problem.

Chinahand. Please don’t think I am accusing you of deliberate distortion, but rather please be wary of the conclusions you draw. There seems to be a misguided interpretation of reports and studies which is disingenous in an ‘evidenced based approach’

 

I take it you are basing your assertion on the section of the York report you quoted:

 

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).

 

With confidence intervals from zero to infinity, from this you could validly say all of the following:

 

a) there is no statistically valid data showing that adding fluoride at 1ppm will cause a problem

b) there is no statistically valid data showing that adding fluoride at 1ppm will not cause a problem

c) there is no statistically valid data on which to base a conclusion either way. (no confidence that it will or will not cause a problem).

 

While technically acceptable, saying ‘no statistically valid evidence that fluoride will cause a problem’ is the kind of statement that can be very misleading to the layperson. It suggests that reseach and statistical studies conclusively show there is not a problem – which is not what the report says.

 

If anything this section of the York report gives a basis to say there is inconclusive evidence indicating that as a result of water fluoridation in IoM, approx 4.5% of the population or 3,600 people may be likely to have fluorosis of aesthetic concern (which I take it means to the extent that this might have impacts on wellbeing). That is also costly to treat, but this is probably not an NHS problem and so is 'externalised'.

 

How many children are going to benefit from fluoridation? i.e. those at risk because their parents do not ensure they take proper care of their teeth. Lonan3's kids may then end up with fluorosis of aesthetic concern for the sake of a quick fix for the sake of others and negligence in their dental care. It is not tinfoilist of him to be concerned and not want his kids to have fluoridated water given the available evidence - albeit that it is still inconclusive.

 

Perhaps more than anything I have a problem with the ways these studies and the research are being misused in public debate by both sides – including fluoride advocates making completely unfounded quasi-scientific assertions – e.g. that it is ‘beyond scientific doubt that fluoride is safe’.

 

IMO the public should have a right to expect that information put to them by public health officials will not be slanted in a way likely to mislead the ordinary person. Consider the difference between these two statements being put forward on the issue:

 

A. There is no scientific evidence that fluoride causes health problems.

 

B. At present it is unknown whether or not fluoride causes health problems.

 

Told the former, many people might be in favour of fluoridation. However they may well be against fluoridation if they were told the latter instead. While strictly speaking the first statement is technically valid, it is nevertheless slewed, slanted and disingenous in being likely to mislead.

 

I am absolutely happy that in a population where the fluoride content of the water is 1.0ppm the doseage people recieve will be such that significant health problems will not develop. There are mountains of evidence to show this,

 

I think you have misled yourself down this slippery slope. That is certainly NOT what the Medical Research Council report says. From that report it is clear that there is not the evidence you suggest there is which shows that at 1ppm ‘significant health problems will not develop’

 

I’d go along with the MRC Report regarding evidence of no association with either cancers or skeletal fluorosis. However I’d also go along with the report that with respect to other health problems, conclusions cannot be reached and more research is needed.

 

From the MRC Report, I believe there is good authority to take it that at present it is unknown whether or not significant health problems will develop as a result of fluoridation at 1ppm.

 

Claiming confidently that significant health problems will not develop is pie in the sky wishful thinking. Happily believe it if you like, but do not claim there is mountains of evidence and scientific research to back this up. If you know of research and evidence that MRC did not take account of, please front up with it. I’ve not bothered to look for what the MRC report tells me isn’t there.

 

(I am sorry if semantic dissection and questioning statements which are unsupported by any evidence appears a load of bollox. IMO making brash bold unfounded statements with a spurious claim these are ‘authoritative’ is what counts as bollox – e.g. insisting that ‘it is beyond scientific doubt that water fluoridation at 1ppm is safe’. That’s bollocks – if the Medical Research Council Report is anything to go by)

[Chinahand]

IMO the public should have a right to expect that information put to them by public health officials will not be slanted in a way likely to mislead the ordinary person. Consider the difference between these two statements being put forward on the issue:

 

A. There is no scientific evidence that fluoride causes health problems.

 

B. At present it is unknown whether or not fluoride causes health problems.

 

...

 

From the MRC Report, I believe there is good authority to take it that at present it is unknown whether or not significant health problems will develop as a result of fluoridation at 1ppm.

 

I think your B is too wide ranging. Scientists can make statements about the upper limits of any health problems fluoridation may cause. If they were above this limit they would be noticeable between those areas that are fluorinated and those not.

 

This applies even to those conditions like ADHD which are difficult to diagnose. If fluoride caused a huge increase in these problems you'd see it inspite of the uncertainties.

 

That conspiracy theorist favourite - the health establishment - view fluoridation as a not causing health problems at levels likely to be a concern though they continue to question that assumption, as all good scientists should, by continuing to do research. We then get into the dialectic as different researchers conduct studies etc.

 

I would reword your B as:

 

B. At present it is unknown whether or not fluoride causes health problems below the level deemed acceptable by such organizations as the World Health Organization, the Centre for Disease Control etc.

 

As society gets richer, and as further research is done the limits will change and our understanding will improve. What that will ultimately show nobody knows - you with your precautionary principle will say no matter the savings in improved health care, we should presume the worst and not fluorinate.

 

I hope you can understand why many policy makers disagree with you.