Fluoride

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, HeliX said:

It was drinking it that Lxxx suggested had no benefit. Which I don't think is strictly accurate, but I think the benefit is very low.

The benefit is extremely high. The only problem is that only a small % of the water gets drunk. So it's economically very inefficient and some might say ethically wrong that it removes the choice from everyone. 

[Chinahand]

20 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Fluoridated. Fluorinated would be a whole lot more deadly. 

Yeah, sorry, my spelling ... plus I don't think I've ever said the word so I don't have a phonetic basis for it. As mentioned elsewhere I'm crap at spelling.

[wrighty]

Does anyone drink sugar filled soft drinks these days? I do, sometimes, as I can't stand artificial sweeteners, but it's increasingly difficult to get 'full-fat' coke etc these days. I thought diet drinks were the norm. 
 

(I wouldn't be surprised in years to come if it's discovered that the switch to artificial sweeteners has made everyone obese by altering gut bacteria such that we now absorb more of our consumed calories, or some other mechanism. My kids used to drink mainly original sugary drinks when growing up, but because they were rationed, and cleaned their teeth, and used fluoride drops etc they have no dental problems, and neither do I)

[Josem]

16 hours ago, Happier diner said:

The benefit is extremely high. The only problem is that only a small % of the water gets drunk. So it's economically very inefficient and some might say ethically wrong that it removes the choice from everyone. 

Scientific studies finds very positive economic benefits:

 

USA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6171335/

New Zealand: https://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12903-017-0433-y

 

The economic benefit is greatest in big water catchment areas, 'cause the benefit is shared by a larger number of people, the cost is mostly the equipment (the cost of the actual fluoride is trivial). Thus, the New Zealand study found that the breakeven point was communities of 500 people or larger.

 

Edited Sunday at 12:14 PM by Josem

[Chinahand]

Josem, thanks for these papers. The sad thing is that people's risk awareness is very heightened when it comes to drinking water. 

It only takes a few people to distort the evidence with tales of cancer or IQ or deliberately use studies which look at the effects of massive doses to make claims about tiny doses for most people to go better to be safe than sorry. 

The purity mob are well organised and will spread doubt very effectively. Sadly rationally presenting evidence isn't likely to work no matter the benefits in procedures saved, fillings undrilled and the occasional death via anesthetic reaction avoided. 

Sigh. 

[Fred the shred]

I was a war baby and no doubt got very little sugar and can still remember ration books for sweets when I was about 8 or so and there were lots of bad teeth around then from memory most of the adults I knew had false teeth by middle age and the school dentist was always busy when I was at Ballakermeen with fillings and extractions so I don’t really go down the sugar blame route.     Proper cleaning morning and night is the answer.

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Fred the shred said:

I was a war baby and no doubt got very little sugar and can still remember ration books for sweets when I was about 8 or so and there were lots of bad teeth around then from memory most of the adults I knew had false teeth by middle age and the school dentist was always busy when I was at Ballakermeen with fillings and extractions so I don’t really go down the sugar blame route.     Proper cleaning morning and night is the answer.

Proper cleaning with fluoride toothpaste 

[Happier diner]

3 hours ago, Josem said:

Scientific studies finds very positive economic benefits:

 

USA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6171335/

New Zealand: https://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12903-017-0433-y

 

The economic benefit is greatest in big water catchment areas, 'cause the benefit is shared by a larger number of people, the cost is mostly the equipment (the cost of the actual fluoride is trivial). Thus, the New Zealand study found that the breakeven point was communities of 500 people or larger.

 

Yes. You are probably right. I wasn't thinking about the economic benefit when considering the cost of dental care, I was more thinking about it's cheaper and more effective to apply to fluoride at the point of use, IE via toothpaste. 

2 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Josem, thanks for these papers. The sad thing is that people's risk awareness is very heightened when it comes to drinking water. 

It only takes a few people to distort the evidence with tales of cancer or IQ or deliberately use studies which look at the effects of massive doses to make claims about tiny doses for most people to go better to be safe than sorry. 

The purity mob are well organised and will spread doubt very effectively. Sadly rationally presenting evidence isn't likely to work no matter the benefits in procedures saved, fillings undrilled and the occasional death via anesthetic reaction avoided. 

Sigh. 

I am sure that fluoride is totally harmless. My only concern is that I question whether it's right that everyone gets the fluoride in drinking water whether they like it or not. Doesn't quite sit right with me even though I would not be bothered myself if I had to drink it. 

[HeliX]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

I am sure that fluoride is totally harmless.

Not sure that can be claimed when fluorosis exists. The risk is probably vanishingly small but given the "healthier" you are, and the less likely you are to need fluoride supplementation, the higher the dose you're likely to get just seems totally daft.

[Two-lane]

"From the societal perspective, CWF can reduce health inequalities by making fluoridated water available to people living in disadvantageous environments."

"High by international standards [4], caries rates in NZ are disproportionately higher in disadvantaged subgroups, with Māori, Pacific peoples, and those in deprived areas having more untreated caries and missing teeth, and greater impacts on their quality of life "

The cost advantages are great when compared to doing nothing. Are there any research papers which compare the cost of fluoridation to the cost of education and regular health checks? Or making environments not disadvantageous?

 

[Happier diner]

54 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Not sure that can be claimed when fluorosis exists. The risk is probably vanishingly small but given the "healthier" you are, and the less likely you are to need fluoride supplementation, the higher the dose you're likely to get just seems totally daft.

I should have said harmless at normal consumption rate. Like many things, too much us bad. 

[Chinahand]

Yep. At the levels used it is basically a cosmetic issue unless they swallow lots and lots of toothpaste too. 

Our kids have slight Fluorosis, but no fillings!

[HeliX]

23 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I should have said harmless at normal consumption rate. Like many things, too much us bad. 

Sure but that's why it seems like a bad solution. Those who will receive the highest dosage are likely those who need it the least, and vice versa. And there are solutions (fluoridated toothpaste) that are vastly more effective.

[Fred the shred]

When I was a kid fluoride as not fashionable.

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, HeliX said:

Sure but that's why it seems like a bad solution. Those who will receive the highest dosage are likely those who need it the least, and vice versa. And there are solutions (fluoridated toothpaste) that are vastly more effective.

That's correct. I think there is a threshold at which it becomes beneficial. Then there is a large band where an excess has no benefit but is harmless. Then there is a level where your teeth might go black... Then there is a level where it might kill you. Like most chemicals really