Fluoride

[HeliX]

Just now, Josem said:

Are you aware of any cases in the modern/developed/Western world of people being harmed by having too much fluoride in their water supply? Do you think that such cases are common in the Republic of Ireland? Do you think that the people of North America, Australia or New Zealand are suffering very much because of their treatments?

It is almost impossible to control studies for something added to the water supply. But we know that too much fluoride is harmful. We know that people drink vastly differing quantities of water. We know that fluoride is most effective (and safest) when topically applied rather than swallowed.

From that it's fairly easy to draw the conclusion that the best approach is to make sure everyone is brushing their teeth with decent toothpaste.

[genericUserName]

34 minutes ago, HeliX said:

the people who need it most are kids who are primarily drinking juice and pop

100%. It would make better sense to target flouride treatment. Tablets. Like in the 70s.

Also - why not move towards an 18+ age limit on sweets, fizzy drinks etc. Sure that will take a cultural shift. But so did the gradually imposed smoking regulations.

[Happier diner]

53 minutes ago, HeliX said:

It is almost impossible to control studies for something added to the water supply. But we know that too much fluoride is harmful. We know that people drink vastly differing quantities of water. We know that fluoride is most effective (and safest) when topically applied rather than swallowed.

From that it's fairly easy to draw the conclusion that the best approach is to make sure everyone is brushing their teeth with decent toothpaste.

You keep saying this. They are not and its impossible to make them. If you have irresponsible parents then the child suffers. Its Ok saying use fluoride tablets and get kids to brush their teeth or stop giving them fizzy drinks. But its not going to happen. Severe tooth decay is something that effects the lower deciles of society

I'm not supportive of mass medication either and I agree that putting it in the water is not ideal nor efficient. However, no one has ever come up with a better idea that works.

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Josem said:

Are you aware of any cases in the modern/developed/Western world of people being harmed by having too much fluoride in their water supply? Do you think that such cases are common in the Republic of Ireland? Do you think that the people of North America, Australia or New Zealand are suffering very much because of their treatments?

They definitely are not. You are correct. 

There are some reasons not to do it. However the reasons that most on here are spouting are not the reasons. They are myths.

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

Obviously there is a difference between naturally occurring and adding an industrial byproduct. No thanks!

What difference?

[Roxanne]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

That's the crux of the argument really. Everything else (IMO) is bullshit really. Its an ethical decision.

If I want fluoride for my teeth I can buy it and add it to my water. I can visit my dentist and have it applied. I could use toothpaste with fluoride in it. 

With this proposal I have no choice. I already have a filtration system for my water but I can’t filter out fluoride and I don’t want to drink it. 

It’s too much to ask and the question should never arise - not when there are alternatives. 

[HeliX]

8 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

You keep saying this. They are not and its impossible to make them. If you have irresponsible parents then the child suffers. Its Ok saying use fluoride tablets and get kids to brush their teeth or stop giving them fizzy drinks. But its not going to happen. Severe tooth decay is something that effects the lower deciles of society

I'm not supportive of mass medication either and I agree that putting it in the water is not ideal nor efficient. However, no one has ever come up with a better idea that works.

But for kids in those circumstances they're not going to be drinking enough water to make the slightest bit of difference to the decay caused by the sweets and pop. I think the threshold of helpfulness that has to be reached before you take the decision to medicate the water supply has not been reached in the case of fluoride.

[Happier diner]

2 minutes ago, HeliX said:

But for kids in those circumstances they're not going to be drinking enough water to make the slightest bit of difference to the decay caused by the sweets and pop. I think the threshold of helpfulness that has to be reached before you take the decision to medicate the water supply has not been reached in the case of fluoride.

Did you read the report on Birmingham .

[Roxanne]

1 hour ago, Josem said:

What does this mean? Do you think that other communities which started adding fluoride generations ago are now adding additional stuff in the water? Why would each such things not just be considered on their own merits?

It means that I’m not comfortable with blanket governmental decisions for the entire population when a large percentage of the population do not want it and when they can buy these chemicals should they wish to do so  

Water is a fundamental resource. I want to drink mine without fluoride in it. 

Children’s teeth are rotting apparently. I’m not surprised. Their diet is loaded with sugar. I’m being asked to drink water with chemicals added because our children’s diets are unhealthy. 

The problem is the diet  The symptom is that children’s teeth are rotting. Rather than dealing with the problem at a fundamental level, we are instead treating the symptom of the problem - only all of us are being treated - even if we don’t want or need it  

I do know this is how the world seems to work now but I don’t agree with it - medicating symptoms rather than dealing with the cause is a panacea for the population to stop taking care of themselves because there’s always a drug/chemical available to make it better  

Can you not see where the thin edge of the wedge might arrive? 

 

 

[Roxanne]

8 minutes ago, HeliX said:

But for kids in those circumstances they're not going to be drinking enough water to make the slightest bit of difference

And that’s the other point. They’re too busy drinking juice, sodas, energy drinks, all loaded with sugar. 

[woolley]

17 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

What difference?

The difference between naturally occurring and industrially processed. Like natural diamonds versus synthetic diamonds. I don't like nannying by the state.

[Happier diner]

21 minutes ago, woolley said:

The difference between naturally occurring and industrially processed. Like natural diamonds versus synthetic diamonds. I don't like nannying by the state.

Like I said. It's not like diamonds. It's an element. There are strict controls on what you can use. If you are talking about it being contaminated with things that are not fluoride that could apply to anything we use/eat/drink in life. 

[Happier diner]

24 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

And that’s the other point. They’re too busy drinking juice, sodas, energy drinks, all loaded with sugar. 

But not in Birmingham it seems. 

[hissingsid]

We are not in Birmingham we are on a lovely Island with a great water supply .   Why should the whole nation be subjected to having a substance added to our water because some feckless parents cannot be arsed to teach and supervise their children about mouth hygiene and the importance of tooth cleaning.    Why should people have to limit their water intake because they are concerned regarding the additive that is being put in the water ?    We are paying through the nose for this water the way the rates are increasing we should have a say.     I thought the government was trying to discourage people from purchasing single use plastic bottles of water…this is a great way of doing it…not.    

[Josem]

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

Can you not see where the thin edge of the wedge might arrive? 

The "thin edge of the wedge" is an argument that approving this might lead to other things being added to the water in the future. I can understand this in regards to decisions where there are issues of degree: if you implement a 1% tax on a thing, it is easy enough to subsequently increase it to 2%, and so on. There are other situations in life/society/etc where we can imagine going from "prohibit" to "allow some" to "allow lots" - lots of stuff in the area of alcohol/drugs/euthanasia/gambling/etc. might fall in that area. But here? I would look to other jurisdictions and see if it has happened.

Given that the richest and most developed countries in the English-speaking world (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, New Zealand) have added fluoride to much of their public water supplies for several generations, this seems like an unlikely risk to be worried about. For example, until the 1990s, despite mostly having water fluoridation, much of Australia suffered from childhood vaccine rates similar to Subsaharan Africa. In the recent COVID pandemic, do you think that the USA is more supportive of compulsory vaccines because they had fluoridation? 

I cannot conceive of what the next thing might be: what else would anyone even want to add to the water? I'm not aware of any meaningful movements in the richer Anglosphere nations to add anything else to the water, and it's not as if AU/NZ/US/CA are more supportive of compulsory public health measures than UK/IM... so I don't see what the hypothetical "thin edge of the wedge" risk is.