# The fluoridation fraud is facing a strong rebellion in Qld



## Whiskers (24 January 2013)

I would start by differentiating this thread "Fluoridation" from the previous "Fluoride" thread, in the sense that I accept there may be some benefit in fluoride products like tooth paste for some people if they choose to use them, but having our health bureaucrats demand we put filthy contaminated fluoride by-products in our drinking water is quite another.

From what I'm hearing at least two councils in the Burnett region have decided to turn off or not connect to fluoridation.

Bundaberg has dug it's heels in and told the Qld chief health officer Dr Jeanette Young (who by the way is demanding that we fluoridate our water) to knick off, you are not going to tell us what to do with our water. Apparently only two of the 10 councilers are in favor of fluoridation, but will not support it because of the ongoing costs to the local council.

The Mayor has arranged a public debate for Jan 30, but so far Dr Young and the pro-fluoride lobby are refusing to show up, rather they organised a seperate pro-fluoridation meeting a week or so ago, where they could have their say without any 'credible' counter information being discussed. They are on record as saying the science is black and white and the noisy minority who dissagree are seriously miss-informed... and that's just the tame end of the abuse critics have got from Qld health and the pro-fluoridation lobby.

I see a similar story developing on the Gold Coast where the push to get rid of fluoridation since the LNP won office and gave them the option to opt out of the filthy excuse for healthier teeth.

C'mon people, it's time to have a closer look at the inaccurate and sometimes plain untruthful 'advertising' the pro-fluoridation lobby are peddling.


----------



## pixel (24 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> I would start by differentiating this thread "Fluoridation" from the previous "Fluoride" thread, in the sense that I accept there may be some benefit in fluoride products like tooth paste for some people if they choose to use them, but having our health bureaucrats demand we put filthy contaminated fluoride by-products in our drinking water is quite another.
> 
> From what I'm hearing at least two councils in the Burnett region have decided to turn off or not connect to fluoridation.
> 
> ...




When my hometown started to add fluorides to the scheme water, I started giving birth to kidney stones. 

Then we moved to Bunbury, and the affliction stopped. ... until our Gov'mint forced the City of Bunbury to do as they were told.
Connecting the dots, I bought a water filter that takes out the crap. That was 24 years ago.

My last kidney colic was 24 years ago.


----------



## Whiskers (24 January 2013)

pixel said:


> When my hometown started to add fluorides to the scheme water, I started giving birth to kidney stones.
> 
> Then we moved to Bunbury, and the affliction stopped. ... until our Gov'mint forced the City of Bunbury to do as they were told.
> Connecting the dots, I bought a water filter that takes out the crap. That was 24 years ago.
> ...




But, according to so called 'credible research' these side effects and others can't be caused by fluoridation of water.

It's infuriating that you had to be a casualty for the so called 'greater good' from a health effect and financially.


----------



## Calliope (24 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> But, according to so called 'credible research' these side effects and others can't be caused by fluoridation of water.
> 
> It's infuriating that you had to be a casualty for the so called 'greater good' from a health effect and financially.




This debate has whiskers on it.


----------



## waza1960 (24 January 2013)

> This debate has whiskers on it.



 +1 :screwy:


----------



## pixel (24 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> This debate has whiskers on it.




"Meeoww!"
Doctors, whom I tell this, find it "interesting"; but so far, nobody has been willing to comment any further, let alone take it a step further and initiate some research.

Of course, it is well known where the interest in mass pollution originated:
If the steelmakers and other users of hydrofluoric acid had to dispose of the waste products safely, they'd have lots of costs and environmental responsibility coming  their way. Thinning it out and spreading the salts across Millions of lawns around the world is a lot more attractive - they even manage to sell the effluent as a profitable by-product.
btw, my dentist doesn't have a problem with me not using fluoridated toothpaste. He was happy to replace it with a casein-based product.


----------



## Whiskers (24 January 2013)

Qld Health, or at least Dr Young and her staunch pro-fluoridation colleagues, are guilty of blatant misrepresentation and bias in promoting fluoridation. This is how they promote and explain fluoride to be used in fluoridation in their website and literature. 

*Q: What is fluoride?*
_A: Fluoride is a naturally occurring compound found
in water, plants, rocks, soil, air and most foods._​

Well, the main point should be it is not desireable in uncontrolled amounts in water, air or food. It's called contamination.

The other big point is that they don't acknowledge the distinction between natural fluoride and chemically produced fluoride pollutants that have escaped into the environment, expressly implying that all fluorides are "natural" diminishing the toxic effect of especially synthetic fluoride compounds and their contaminants.


*Q: Where does it come from?*
_A: The fluoride used for water fluoridation can be extracted
at the same time as other minerals, such as phosphates
from ground rocks. The co-production of natural fluoride
through an already established mining process is an
efficient use of our natural resources._​

While they acknowledge the fluoride allowed for fluoridation is sourced from industrial plants, they don't;

distinguish this industrial grade fluoride containing impurities typically mainly cadmium, lead and arsenic from pharmaceutical grade fluoride used in toothpaste etc, and 

misrepresent a hazadous chemically complex by-product containing other deadly accumulative toxins as "natural" fluoride. 

Under the Qld Water Fluoridation Act 2008, section 5, the forms of fluoride that can be used are; 
_(a)   sodium fluoride (NaF);
(b)   sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6);
(c)   fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6);
(d)   naturally occurring fluoride contained in a source of
water in which the concentration of fluoride is higher
than the prescribed concentration for the water supply
under section 6(2).​_
Further, under the Water Fluoridation Regulation 2008, section 14 deals with  "Impurities in fluoride"

Interestingly it doesn't ban any impurities but says at (2);

The public potable water supplier must not add the fluoride to
the water supply if the batch analysis certificate for the
quantity of fluoride indicates the concentration of impurities
in the fluoride is likely to adversely affect public health.​
How do you like that rather subjective qualification in the context that the operator has complete legal indemnity?

The other point is the use of the term "Batch analysis" certificate. This may vary greatly from individual containers and even the average of the batch if the test sample was poorly taken.


----------



## Calliope (24 January 2013)

pixel said:


> "Meeoww!"
> Doctors, whom I tell this, find it "interesting"; but so far, nobody has been willing to comment any further, let alone take it a step further and initiate some research.




The Fluoride Thread has been running for nearly six years and I doubt if anyone has changed sides. After dominating that thread with his verbiage I very much doubt that Whiskers has anything new to add to justify his obsession. But that hasn't stopped him in the past.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 January 2013)

A few truths on the Fluoride Debate.

I think it's a good additive and believe the Dentists and Doctors on it by the way, but this is about the debate.

So on the Debate.

1. Most folk against Fluoride operate on the fringes of their professions.

2. Many are doctors' wives or people with other strange beliefs with bugger all else to do.

3. I can find nothing against fluoridation by googling major health, dental, public health, medical and scientific journals and the WHO.

4. This post will make absolutely no difference to the belief of believers that it is bad.

gg


----------



## Whiskers (24 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> This debate has whiskers on it.






waza1960 said:


> +1 :screwy:




So you guys are happy to blindly accept everything your politicians and health departments tell you?

That would put you in the league of 'blind faith' followers, like those so called experts including many doctors and their medical organisations who smoked and actively promoted smoking for half a decade after the first research showed a link between smoking and all sorts of adverse health effects.

*It's worth remembering the so called medical experts and regulators, took the word of the manufacturer of Asbestos, Thalidomide, DDT, Tobacco companies and many others before they were proven to have either hidden the true research or hadn't carried out proper research.*

Remember, it took a few decades to reveal the truth about asbestos... more than half a century after the research showed adverse medical effects to get to where we are today with tobacco.

A common theme proven of asbestos, tobacco and many others is the infiltration of the regulatory systems by lobby groups of industry to dishonestly promote and or corruptly endorse their product.

Are you guys suggesting the fluoride industry and it's lobbyists are completely open, honest, factual and not corrupt?


----------



## Whiskers (24 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> A few truths on the Fluoride Debate.
> 
> I think it's a good additive and believe the Dentists and Doctors on it by the way, but this is about the debate.




I'm dissapointed in you gg! :

You completely trust the medical professions!?

Maybe I should mention a few words like 'medical fraud', 'medical overservicing', corruption, selfrightious/selfinterest health bureaucrats, that go hand in hand with the health industry.


----------



## banco (24 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> I'm dissapointed in you gg! :
> 
> You completely trust the medical professions!?
> 
> Maybe I should mention a few words like 'medical fraud', 'medical overservicing', corruption, selfrightious/selfinterest health bureaucrats, that go hand in hand with the health industry.




I trust the medical profession more than I trust some Queensland yokels.


----------



## Calliope (24 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> Are you guys suggesting the fluoride industry and it's lobbyists are completely open, honest, factual and not corrupt?




Why should you care? What's your agenda? How do we know that you "are completely open, honest, factual and not corrupt?"


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> So you guys are happy to blindly accept everything your politicians and health departments tell you?
> 
> That would put you in the league of 'blind faith' followers, like those so called experts including many doctors and their medical organisations who smoked and actively promoted smoking for half a decade after the first research showed a link between smoking and all sorts of adverse health effects.
> 
> ...






Whiskers said:


> I'm dissapointed in you gg! :
> 
> You completely trust the medical professions!?
> 
> Maybe I should mention a few words like 'medical fraud', 'medical overservicing', corruption, selfrightious/selfinterest health bureaucrats, that go hand in hand with the health industry.




You make some good points.

However as a lad in the 60's I can remember a doctor's wife in our suburb making a huge hullabaloo about fluoride, she was as mad as a cut snake, but influential.

Fifty years later i don't see people with good teeth walking about with an extra arm or leg.

And the places where fluoride has been introduced have less dental caries.

I will not reply further in this thread, as it annoys me.

Give your retort and bugger off.

gg


----------



## medicowallet (24 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> I'm dissapointed in you gg! :
> 
> You completely trust the medical professions!?
> 
> Maybe I should mention a few words like 'medical fraud', 'medical overservicing', corruption, selfrightious/selfinterest health bureaucrats, that go hand in hand with the health industry.




I find this kind of comment distasteful and insulting.

If you seriously believe this rubbish you peddle about fluoridation, I pity your understanding of reality.


Give me one good reason as to why the medical profession would want to harm people with fluoride.

Why can't anyone prove that there is major detrimental effects of fluoride to health?   Oh, because it is a very effective public health measure where the benefit outweighs the risk. But then again, you will never see any reason wrt cost-benefit analysis, as in black and white fairyland this is not a consideration at all.

I would encourage you to obtain some type of healthcare qualification, but unfortunately I don't think it would help.

MW


----------



## boofis (24 January 2013)

medicowallet said:


> Give me one good reason as to why the medical profession would want to harm people with fluoride.
> 
> Why can't anyone prove that there is major detrimental effects of fluoride to health?   Oh, because it is a very effective public health measure where the benefit outweighs the risk.




It's not that they would want to harm people, it's just that they might stand to gain something by not getting in the way. 

I err on the side of caution; how can you be so certain of any outcomes over such a prolonged period of time e.g. lifetime LOL, with such a wide range of extraneous variables?


----------



## Whiskers (25 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Why should you care?




As a typical consumer isn't it responsible for us all to have confidence our health professionals and organisations are not being misled, being completely honest and not acting out of some overzealous self righteousness or corruption?



> What's your agenda?




Simply to keep our water supplies as clean and pure as possible by eliminating the addition of additional impurities especially fluoride and associated cadmium, lead and arsenic etc into the water supply.



> How do we know that you "are completely open, honest, factual and not corrupt?"




You don't really, except by analysing the points I make. That can't hurt you... unless you have an adgenda against me or are uncomfortable with being shown your long held trust of some powerful medical professionals is ill-founded.

Secondly, I'm not trying to sell or force you to take anything against your will.

Common misconceptions: Your doctor typically doesn't know anymore than you or me whether a product is safe or not. They don't do the research themselves, but typically rely on advice and information from the product manufacturer and their peak medical Authorities. As with Asbestos, thalidomide, DDT, tobacco etc they too were mislead by their peak medical authorities for a long time.


----------



## Calliope (25 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> ... acting out of some *overzealous self righteousness *or corruption?




That's you in a nut-shell. Your motives are highly suspect.


----------



## Whiskers (25 January 2013)

medicowallet said:


> I find this kind of comment distasteful and insulting.




Why... don't you acknowledge there is a fraud, medical overservicing, corruption and selfrightious/selfinterest in the medical fraternity?



> If you seriously believe this rubbish you peddle about fluoridation, I pity your understanding of reality.




Before I condem you, I'm happy to discuss which parts you have trouble believing.



> Give me one good reason as to why the medical profession would want to harm people with fluoride.




The medical profession generally would not... but as for a minority of influential medical bureaucrats, their sole focus becomes blinded by their corrupt self-interest or irrisponsible overzealous persuit of their career, as was the cases for asbestos, tobacco etc etc.



> Why can't anyone prove that there is major detrimental effects of fluoride to health?




Why do detrimental effects have to be major? There are many well documented side effects of fluoridation including fluorosis in 30% or more of people who otherwise would not have had it.



> Oh, because it is a very effective public health measure where the benefit outweighs the risk. But then again, you will never see any reason wrt cost-benefit analysis, as in black and white fairyland this is not a consideration at all.




I'm glad you mentioned the cost benifit MW. The Bundaberg Regional Council has published estimates that only .8% of the reticulated water supply is used for drinking. The south Burnett councils which include Blackbutt to Murgon and Kingaroy say most of the houses have tank water for drinking and as such they are opting out of fluoridation like Bundaberg on a cost basis.

A Local Dentist Dr Ingham commented in the Bundaberg News Mail that "the incidence of decay in children's teeth in southern states seemed to be increasing." contrary to the pro-fluoridation campaign claims.

Dr Ingham says "It is speculated this could be associated with many children and adults drinking bottled water instead of fluoridated tap water."

*Therein lays the achilles heel of the cost benifit argument for fluoridation. If people don't drink the water it's a total waste of money with no prospect of any claimed health benifit.*



> I would encourage you to obtain some type of healthcare qualification, but unfortunately I don't think it would help.




I have a basic understanding of science, but as you know from earlier, I have qualifications in accounting and law and behavioural psychology. I'm the analytical and audit nightmare of the "believe me" con artist. :

MW, it's got little to do with medical qualifications and more to do with behaviour than you might imagine. Most people can sense when they ask a simple question and get abuse or change of subject back, that something is not right. That is the downfall of the pro-fluoridation lobby around here. They literally demand we accept and believe everything they say and dismiss everything else as a noisy minority sprouting unreliable rubbish.  Yeah... well Bernie Banton, Eddie Mabo, numerous smokers etc etc have heard that before and they have been proven wrong.


----------



## Whiskers (25 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You make some good points.
> 
> However as a lad in the 60's I can remember a doctor's wife in our suburb making a huge hullabaloo about fluoride, she was as mad as a cut snake, but influential.
> 
> ...




I'm sorry it annoys you gg, it seems it was a fairly traumatic experience for you as a youngster.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> I'm sorry it annoys you gg, it seems it was a fairly traumatic experience for you as a youngster.




Fascism always is.

Even when just done by intellectuals with soft power.

gg


----------



## pixel (25 January 2013)

The cost-benefit argument is absolute BS.
How is it cost-effective to pour 12L fluoridated water down the toilet with every flush?
How about the kilolitres of poolwater, reticulation, ...

It would be far more cost-effective to concentrate on what causes tooth decay. If, as common sense would suggest, teeth decay from insufficient brushing and sugary, acidic drinks: Add fluorides to coke and lemonade! Get some research done that measures the damage each does, then mandate the adequate dosage to neutralise the ill effects. Add some to chocolate, jellybabies, whatever is found to cause decay. But don't force a "cure" on all those who don't need it.

Oh! but then you could only get rid of 0.001% as much of the industrial waste, and the polluters would have to absorb the costs. Can't have that of course. Can't force the makers of soft drinks and sweets either to add something useful to their product. So we better keep poisoning our kids and polluting the environment in ways that won't show during the next 5 election cycles or even generations...


----------



## Calliope (25 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> You don't really, except by analysing the points I make. That can't hurt you... unless you have an adgenda against me or are uncomfortable with being shown your long held trust of some powerful medical professionals is ill-founded.




The above was in answer to my question; 







> How do we know that you "are completely open, honest, factual and not corrupt?"




It doesn't take much analysis of the "points" you make, to work out your agenda. You are using fluoridation of water as a handy prop to pursue a vendetta against the medical profession. You claim you are a behavioral psychologist. I noticed you practicing your craft on GG;


> I'm sorry it annoys you gg, *it seems it was a fairly traumatic experience for you as a youngster*




Perhaps you had some traumatic experience as a youngster that has embittered you against the medical profession.


----------



## Whiskers (25 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> The above was in answer to my question;
> 
> It doesn't take much analysis of the "points" you make, to work out your agenda. You are using fluoridation of water as a handy prop to pursue a vendetta against the medical profession. You claim you are a behavioral psychologist. I noticed you practicing your craft on GG;
> 
> ...




Actually there are quite a few ways to tell if you are having a discussion with an 'sincere' person.

They also include 'playing the person' instead of the ball (issue) and jumping to conclusions or deliberately misquoting such as I said I had training in... and you misquote "are a behavioural psychologist".

If you were a 'professional' person on whom you communication was being relied upon, you would be guilty of negligence by misquoting and misrepresenting the facts and fraud if you stood to gain from it.

You are part correct... I am a conscious objector to unjustice in the public service. I'm not bitter or have a vendetta against the medical profession... on the contrary, I'm very supportive of  and thankful for the medical profession generally and friends and relatives in the profession. 

By way of example I have recently beat a traffic fine where a vengeful cop tried to make a point. Two different magistrates found in favor of the cop in the hearing and rehearing, but upon appeal to the district court the prosecution was forced to withdraw. 

The short story and moral is, the prosecution tried to manipulate the law and play on the credability of the police service inherent in the law, over the truth and facts. Their undoing was I played the facts in the context of accountability under the law and the prosecution was found to have mislead the court. 

*Similarly with fluoridation, there are legal/class actions being planned and they will win in the end for the same reasons... key people in the regulatory authorities didn't play buy the rules and deliberately or negligently mislead people.*

So Calliope, what is your adgenda... are you claiming the medical profession is above reproach, are you just being an annoying troll, or have you some constructive input to the issue of fluoridation?


----------



## Calliope (25 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> So Calliope, what is your adgenda... are you claiming the medical profession is above reproach, are you just being an annoying troll, or have you some constructive input to the issue of fluoridation?




My "adgenda" (sic) is an interest in why you are carrying out a malicious vendetta against the medical profession under the guise of altruism. Your mention of "class action" is a clue. I suppose you are trying to create the right atmosphere for your "class action" case.

"annoying troll"...now there's irony for you. 

I have no interest in the fluoride issue, nor any other conspiracy theories. As far as I'm concerned the debate is dead in the water in spite of your attempts to resurrect it.



> If you were a 'professional' person on whom you communication was being relied upon, you would be guilty of negligence by misquoting and misrepresenting the facts and fraud if you stood to gain from it



It is very strange that a "professional person" claiming to be lawyer can't spell "agenda" or "credibility." I'm afraid your "credability" is shot 

Nothing to see here...move on. I will be making no further comment. Go for it.


----------



## Julia (25 January 2013)

pixel said:


> The cost-benefit argument is absolute BS.
> How is it cost-effective to pour 12L fluoridated water down the toilet with every flush?
> How about the kilolitres of poolwater, reticulation, ...
> 
> It would be far more cost-effective to concentrate on what causes tooth decay. If, as common sense would suggest, teeth decay from insufficient brushing and sugary, acidic drinks: Add fluorides to coke and lemonade! Get some research done that measures the damage each does, then mandate the adequate dosage to neutralise the ill effects. Add some to chocolate, jellybabies, whatever is found to cause decay. But don't force a "cure" on all those who don't need it.



I agree.  Medicating, unnecessarily, an entire population when there's an acceptable alternative of those who wish to consume fluoride doing so individually, is imo just wrong, not to mention a huge waste of money.



Calliope said:


> I have no interest in the fluoride issue, nor any other conspiracy theories. As far as I'm concerned the debate is dead in the water in spite of your attempts to resurrect it.



You have no interest in it, yet leap to rubbish the concerns that Whiskers and many others express.



> It is very strange that a "professional person" claiming to be lawyer can't spell "agenda" or "credibility." I'm afraid your "credability" is shot



I have not seen where Whiskers has claimed to be either a lawyer or a behavioural psychologist.  What he said was 







> I have a basic understanding of science, but as you know from earlier, I have qualifications in accounting and law and behavioural psychology.



I have no idea what these qualifications are, and don't consider it especially relevant to the debate about fluoride.
Twisting people's words in order to further have a go at them is imo unhelpful.


----------



## Some Dude (25 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I think it's a good additive and believe the Dentists and Doctors on it by the way, but this is about the debate.
> 
> So on the Debate.
> 
> ...




+1 here.

I can't make any informed assessment, can't find any relevant literature indicating it is bad, and likewise end up deferring to the professionals about it.



Julia said:


> I agree.  Medicating, unnecessarily, an entire population when there's an acceptable alternative of those who wish to consume fluoride doing so individually, is imo just wrong, not to mention a huge waste of money.




Interesting point. My initial reaction was to compare it to vaccinations but herd immunity doesn't really factor in here. A better analogy might be iodised salt? Interesting to note that when I read the wikipedia entry, they mentioned fluoridated salt.

I had a guy apply for a job once, resume was incredible but I first realised that I had an interesting character when I brought him a glass of water and he asked "Is that tap water?". I said yes and ask why upon which he spent the next 5 minutes telling me about the problems with fluoride and how it is used in China to keep the population dumb etc.

Was an interesting interview.


----------



## Calliope (25 January 2013)

Julia said:


> You have no interest in it, yet leap to rubbish the concerns that Whiskers and many others express.




Not so. I was merely pointing *my concern* at Whisker's nasty attitude towards the medical profession. He is the one doing all the rubbishing.



> Twisting people's words in order to further have a go at them is imo unhelpful.




I agree. That's why I don't do it. It is others who try to put words in my mouth.

Unlike you, I agree with Some Dude's response to GG;


> I can't make any informed assessment, can't find any relevant literature indicating it is bad, and likewise end up deferring to the professionals about it.




And...shock, horror;


> *Mandatory fortification*
> Since October 2009, regulations have required that non-iodised salt be replaced with iodised salt in all bread except organic bread and bread mixes for making bread at home. However, manufacturers can choose to add iodised salt to bread mixes if they wish. Additionally, salt-free breads will not contain iodised salt. This action was taken to address the re-emergence of deficiency in Australia and New Zealand.


----------



## Whiskers (25 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> +1 here.
> 
> I can't make any informed assessment, can't find any relevant literature indicating it is bad, and likewise end up deferring to the professionals about it.




I have to admit I was in a similar position some years ago... but I have a pre-disposition for a sustainable, holistic enviornment as opposed to the commercial, consumption based economic model where you keep consuming something extra to fix or make things better. 

Often it's better sustainable and holistic economics to consume less to gain more health and wealth. 



> I had a guy apply for a job once, resume was incredible but I first realised that I had an interesting character when I brought him a glass of water and he asked "Is that tap water?". I said yes and ask why upon which he spent the next 5 minutes telling me about the problems with fluoride and how it is used in China to keep the population dumb etc.
> 
> Was an interesting interview.




I can imagine... but it is based in some fact. Fluorine was long used in poison, chemical and nuclear weapon production before fluoridation of water became too fashionable. Hitler apparently experimented with nerve gas type chemicals using fluorine. Actually you might be surprised how many chemicals and drugs involve fluorine or fluoride in the process. But as I mentioned at the outset of the thread, I accept some use of pharmaceutical grade fluoride in products like tooth paste and drugs for individual use.

My objection is to mass fluoridation of water systems with contaminated industrial grade fluoride.



Calliope said:


> And...shock, horror;




Now that's a useful contribution from you Calliope.

Research shows fluoride is antaganistic to calcium and iodine uptake, especially in low iodine diets as much of the fluoridated world is heading. The proponents of fluoridation have no choice but to advocate extra iodine supplementation.


----------



## Calliope (25 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> .
> Now that's a useful contribution from you Calliope.
> 
> Research shows fluoride is antaganistic to calcium and iodine uptake, especially in low iodine diets as much of the fluoridated world is heading. The proponents of fluoridation have no choice but to advocate extra iodine supplementation.




Good spin whiskers.


----------



## Some Dude (25 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> Often it's better sustainable and holistic economics to consume less to gain more health and wealth.




I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Contextualise everything I say here under the caveat that I don't know but I would have assumed that the decision to add fluoride to water would have been done after study, analysis, and testing determined that it was a positive course of action? That doesn't mean it is correct now, or that there isn't a better way, but I am not quite sure how the consume less works in this context? I can choose to consume less tooth paste, panadol, iodine, and omega 3 but that doesn't mean that they are the best choices for me?

I can relate more to Julia's point about it being a decision given that there is not a herd or communal impact that requires a group or social decision but I am still processing that one.



Whiskers said:


> My objection is to mass fluoridation of water systems with contaminated industrial grade fluoride.




Noted. Any peer reviewed literature about that this? I can't profess to have investigated this too deeply.


----------



## QldSafeWater (25 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> I would start by differentiating this thread "Fluoridation" from the previous "Fluoride" thread, in the sense that I accept there may be some benefit in fluoride products like tooth paste for some people if they choose to use them, but having our health bureaucrats demand we put filthy contaminated fluoride by-products in our drinking water is quite another.
> 
> From what I'm hearing at least two councils in the Burnett region have decided to turn off or not connect to fluoridation.
> 
> ...





http://www.news-mail.com.au/news/dentist-shuns-sham-debate/1717175/
According to Qld Health Dentist  Michael Foley - people  ( like myself an invited speaker to the Bundaberg Fluoride Forum ) or at least  comments attributed to Dr Foley by the News Mail suggest that myself, personally and the association I represent Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air and Food Inc, are dangerous to the people of Bundaberg and Queensland , that we are not scientific  or credible, that we do not warrant or deserve respectability  and that we are a dangerous and eccentric fringe group . He appears to suggest that we do not have a legitimate view and  that a 2 sided debate would be a sham because of our presence.

Read more -

ANTI-FLUORIDE campaigner Terry Farrell is letterboxing Bundaberg households with flyers which he says will help people make an "informed decision." 
Mr Farrell, a member of the Bundaberg - Say no to fluoride campaign, said the flyer drop in the run-up to the January 31 fluoride forum was completely independent of Bundaberg Regional Council. 
"The flyer will have information about the forum and scientific information on fluoride," he said. 
"The argument that there is no evidence supporting the anti-fluoride side is ridiculous." 
It comes as Brisbane Dental Hospital director Michael Foley, who was guest speaker at the pro-fluoride meeting held last Thursday evening, has said he will not attend the council-run fluoride forum unless required by his superiors to do so. 
"As a health professional I am not going to give credibility to views I find dangerous to the people of Queensland and Bundaberg," he said. 
"This is not a 50:50 scientific debate. In a similar vein, the Australian Medical Association will never share a stage with the people who argue against childhood vaccinations. It gives dangerous and eccentric fringe groups a credibility and respectability that's completely unwarranted." 
Dr Foley said he had been approached by numerous anti-fluoride organisations over the weekend including the Anti Fluoridation Association of Mildura (AFAM) who challenged him to debate Fluoride Action Network director Paul Connett. 
In an email exchange obtained by the NewsMail, AFAM said Dr Foley was "a really 'tough guy' in front of a bunch of ignorant citizens, who are easy prey for a pro-fluoridation puppet like yourself". 
In response, Dr Foley said: "The people of Bundaberg face serious dental health problems, and a 10-year wait for a check-up at the Bundaberg Base Hospital Dental Clinic is simply unacceptable". 
"I prefer not to take part in any sham debate whose primary purpose is to legitimise views repeatedly rejected by every reputable health and scientific authority in Australia." 
Matthew Griffiths, who arranged last Thursday's pro-fluoride meeting, said he was not surprised no one had agreed to speak at the January 31 event. 
"No one is prepared to put their name to it at this stage," he said. 
Fluoride forum and poll: 
When: Thursday, January 31 at 6.30pm 
Where: Civic Centre 
Vote at: bundaberg.qld.gov.au


----------



## sydboy007 (25 January 2013)

You wouldn't happen to be mates with Wendy McClelland of Dereel by chance ??


----------



## Some Dude (25 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> You wouldn't happen to be mates with Wendy McClelland of Dereel by chance ??




eh?


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 January 2013)

How many people regularly drink significant quantities of tap water these days?

Most of the younger generation seem to see water as product that comes in a bottle and simply won't drink from the tap. If the shop's out of bottled water then they'll buy fizzy drinks or something else instead.

If people aren't drinking the tap water then it's irrelevant whether or not there's fluoride added to it.


----------



## Julia (25 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Interesting point. My initial reaction was to compare it to vaccinations but herd immunity doesn't really factor in here. A better analogy might be iodised salt? Interesting to note that when I read the wikipedia entry, they mentioned fluoridated salt.



I don't think either the vaccination or iodised salt analogy is valid.
Vaccinations are not compulsory, although obviously are much encouraged because it has been mass vaccination that has essentially conquered dreadful diseases like polio, smallpox etc.  People who do not believe in it are permitted not to have their children vaccinated.
Completely different from mass medication of the water supply.

Ditto iodised salt.  This is simply available for those who wish to use it.  There is no problem in buying various types of salt which have no iodine added.  So again, not comparable with mass fluoridation of the water supply where the majority of the population has little choice but to drink from tap water, unless they have the funds to install reverse osmosis filters.




> I had a guy apply for a job once, resume was incredible but I first realised that I had an interesting character when I brought him a glass of water and he asked "Is that tap water?". I said yes and ask why upon which he spent the next 5 minutes telling me about the problems with fluoride and how it is used in China to keep the population dumb etc.
> 
> Was an interesting interview.



So did his concerns prompt you to do any research about the potential damage to vulnerable individuals in consuming fluoride?




Smurf1976 said:


> How many people regularly drink significant quantities of tap water these days?
> 
> Most of the younger generation seem to see water as product that comes in a bottle and simply won't drink from the tap. If the shop's out of bottled water then they'll buy fizzy drinks or something else instead.
> 
> If people aren't drinking the tap water then it's irrelevant whether or not there's fluoride added to it.



Exactly.  Plus the fact that just a tiny proportion of this medicated water is actually consumed by people.
Most of it gets flushed down the toilet, used in showers and baths, and poured on to gardens.
How on earth is that cost effective?


----------



## Some Dude (25 January 2013)

Julia said:


> So did his concerns prompt you to do any research about the potential damage to vulnerable individuals in consuming fluoride?




No, it flagged him as an interesting character so I gave him the job


----------



## Calliope (25 January 2013)

Julia said:


> Ditto iodised salt.  This is simply available for those who wish to use it.




Unless of course, if you eat bread. Then you have no choice unless you eat organic bread or make you own.


----------



## Julia (25 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Unless of course, if you eat bread. Then you have no choice unless you eat organic bread or make you own.



So what is your point?  You have the choice of making your own or buying organic, many varieties of which are freely available.
It's entirely different from mass medication of tap water.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 January 2013)

Julia said:


> So what is your point?  You have the choice of making your own or buying organic, many varieties of which are freely available.
> It's entirely different from mass medication of tap water.




I just look at the science.

States which have fluoridation have less dental caries and no increase in the incidence or prevelance of the side effects pushed by the anti fluoridation brigade.

gg


----------



## Calliope (25 January 2013)

Julia said:


> So what is your point?  You have the choice of making your own or buying organic, many varieties of which are freely available.
> It's entirely different from mass medication of tap water.




Ah, at last you have cottoned on. It's all about choice. You also have the choice of drinking bottled water (many varieties are freely available) or rainwater along with your organic bread, and you will be safe from those dangerous halogens. Make sure, of course, that you don't put any chlorine or bromine in your pool.


----------



## Julia (25 January 2013)

The capacity to freely drink from the public water supply should be fundamental without concerns about poisons being added to it.  It should not be necessary to separately buy bottled water when our rates and taxes pay for tap water.

I'm well aware of your propensity to extend arguments for the sake of so doing.
Consider me out of this one as far as you are concerned.


----------



## medicowallet (25 January 2013)

Whiskers resurrects this every now and then.

I am always surprised that those most opinionated have no understanding of the most basic concepts of public health interventions. I mean really basic public health concepts... really basic. 

Fluoridation is only used because there is good evidence for it, and no good evidence against it.

There is logic in providing interventions to all people, even though some do not benefit. There are many examples of this kind of thing in the real world, be those in other forms of insurance, or interventions that are chosen for us by those we entrust rightfully to do the right thing for the community. Only our selfishness leads us to question interventions which have a almost zero effect on ourselves, but might benefit others greatly, but that is the way of people it seems. It is even worse when we do not understand that there is actually a need for or a benefit of such an intervention.

If the evidence did not stack up, the loonies would be able to prove the so-called conspiracy.

It is really frustrating posting in this area.

I think I might follow the lead of the wise gg and sign out

MW


----------



## Calliope (26 January 2013)

Julia said:


> I'm well aware of your propensity to extend arguments for the sake of so doing.




That's a laugh, considering that you gratuitously contest everything I say, just for the sake of argument.



> Consider me out of this one as far as you are concerned.




Promise?

I'll follow Medicowallets's advice;


> I think I might follow the lead of the wise gg and sign out



 and leave this thread to the crazy conspiracy theorists.


----------



## Whiskers (26 January 2013)

Medicowallet, the science aside for the moment, I refer you back to the cost-benefit arguement from post 19 (I think).



> I'm glad you mentioned the cost benifit MW. The Bundaberg Regional Council has published estimates that only .8% of the reticulated water supply is used for drinking. The south Burnett councils which include Blackbutt to Murgon and Kingaroy say most of the houses have tank water for drinking and as such they are opting out of fluoridation like Bundaberg on a cost basis.
> 
> A Local Dentist Dr Ingham commented in the Bundaberg News Mail that "the incidence of decay in children's teeth in southern states seemed to be increasing." contrary to the pro-fluoridation campaign claims.
> 
> ...




I've asked you previously in the 'fluoride' thread for the research that substantiates the cost benefit arguement and no one has provided any. You keep saying the reseach says there is a cost benifit, but I've researched long and hard and *typically find one researcher quotes another or previous research to the effect of cost-benefit ... BUT the 'Chinese Whispers' just keeps going without leading to any real economic assement.*

The Bundaberg and lower Burnett councils have considered the amount of their water supply going to drinking water as insignificant in their water network and the number of households actually using tank water for drinking as significant. Both consider the ongoing operating costs as prohibitive, ie they are not reimbursed enough (from the health budget) in the long run, and ineffective because of the tiny amount of water consumed for drinking.

It's only fair the councils be properly reimbursed from the health budget to provide this so called important health iniative, isn't it?

*MW, please provide the research that shows the cost benefit of fluoridation.*


----------



## Some Dude (26 January 2013)

Whiskers said:


> *MW, please provide the research that shows the cost benefit of fluoridation.*




I'm going to stipulate that from my perspective, this is a fair question, and as medicoWallet has stated. I would be surprised if the literature i.e. peer reviewed, case studies, cost benefit analsysi, etc. , is not available somewhere.

That said and accepted, is there any peer reviewed literature or studies by the relevant scientific community about the dangers of either fluoridation or the contaminated industrial grade fluoride?

I'm happy to start looking into this as an individual and openly acknowledge that it is something I have simply assumed. Is your objection likewise based on an equivalent assumption or has your opinion been informed by peer reviewed scientific literature from the relevant scientific community?



Whiskers said:


> I've asked you previously in the 'fluoride' thread for the research that substantiates the cost benefit arguement and no one has provided any. You keep saying the reseach says there is a cost benifit, but I've researched long and hard and *typically find one researcher quotes another or previous research to the effect of cost-benefit ... BUT the 'Chinese Whispers' just keeps going without leading to any real economic assement.*




As a starting point for myself, would you be able to refer me to these papers or reports?

Thanks


----------



## Whiskers (26 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> As a starting point for myself, would you be able to refer me to these papers or reports?
> 
> Thanks




I'll get to the cost-benefit reports such as they are shortly. There is an introduction to impurities allowed in fluoridation back at post #7. 

I will eloberate further when I have more time... but to answer you query about the science of fluoridation very succinctly, compare the facts as presented on the Qld health http://www.health.qld.gov.au/fluoride/facts_myths.asp  and ADA http://www.ada.org.au/OralHealth/FLN/flfaqs.aspx#FLcosteff  sites  about fluoridation over exposure  to this http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf from the WHO... extracts below. 

See if you think anyone is unethically playing down the adverse affects and the issue of uncontrollable variables of fluoride intake to dangerous levels?

*2.2.5 Total fluoride exposure*

Based on the previous discussion, it follows that total daily fluoride exposure can
vary markedly from one region to another. However, from several studies, a
rough estimate of total daily fluoride exposure in a temperate climate would be
approximately 0.6 mg per adult per day in an area in which no fluoride is added to
the drinking-water and 2mg per adult per day in a fluoridated area (WHO, 1984).
In many countries this can be potentially increased for children from the use of
fluoridated dental products but there will be significant variation in individual
exposure. In hot climates the much higher consumption of water will also
increase the intake and this is frequently highly significant. In addition, fluoride
exposure in many areas is considerably higher as a consequence of a range of
practices, including the consumption of brick tea and the cooking and drying of
food with high fluoride coal. A range of estimated fluoride intakes as a consequence
of exposure to a number of different sources is given in Tables 2.3 and 2.4.

*3.3.1 Effects on teeth*

The beneficial and the detrimental effects of fluoride naturally present in water
were well established by the early 1940s. High levels of fluoride present in
concentrations up to 10 mg l–1 were associated with dental fluorosis (yellowish
or brownish striations or mottling of the enamel) while low levels of fluoride,
less than 0.1 mg l–1, were associated with high levels of dental decay (Edmunds
and Smedley, 1996), although poor nutritional status is also an important
contributory factor.

Concentrations in drinking-water of about 1 mg l–1 are associated with a
lower incidence of dental caries, particularly in children, whereas excess intake
of fluoride can result in dental fluorosis. In severe cases this can result in erosion
of enamel. The margin between the beneficial effects of fluoride and the occurrence
of dental fluorosis is small and public health programmes seek to retain a
suitable balance between the two (IPCS, 2002).


----------



## Whiskers (26 January 2013)

A couple of links that refer to the cost benefit but when you look closely, neither of those links show the raw data on which their calculations are based and appear not to be holistic economic effects on the community.

The ADA one quotes other research as "expecting" savings, but without any raw data it's likely just savings to the state health budget. It doesn't address the shifting of full costs for maintaining the system to local government or the private sector for increased dental fluorosis.

The CDC one refers to "local cost savings" but acknowledges only for "all but very small communities" which most of Qld is.

This is what I mean by a 'Chinese Whispers' type of reference, where one refers to another and so on and the context of the original probably getting biased or totally distorted by the time it gets to the end of the wisper. Please, someone show me some original raw data on the alleged cost benefit.

http://www.ada.org.au/OralHealth/FLN...aspx#FLcosteff

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm


----------



## Whiskers (26 January 2013)

Also can someone get a copy of the IMPACT ANALYSIS OF WATER FLUORIDATION. December, 2002. Prepared for Queensland Health by Jaguar Consulting Pty Ltd.

It is referred to by Qld health as their source of supposed cost benefits, but they don't give a link to a copy and I'm damned if I can find one.


----------



## Julia (26 January 2013)

medicowallet said:


> Whiskers resurrects this every now and then.



I imagine  he is raising it at present because of the recent decision of his local Council to cease adding fluoride to the water supply.  This makes it topical and of at least some local interest.



> I am always surprised that those most opinionated have no understanding of the most basic concepts of public health interventions. I mean really basic public health concepts... really basic.
> 
> Fluoridation is only used because there is good evidence for it, and no good evidence against it.



Perhaps consider that some of us do not dispute that fluoride helps to prevent dental caries, but are against the mass medication of a population, when the alternative exists of those wishing to use fluoride being able to do so as individuals. thus not infringing on the rights of those who prefer, for whatever reason, not to consume it.


----------



## albaby (26 January 2013)

Julia said:


> I imagine  he is raising it at present because of the recent decision of his local Council to cease adding fluoride to the water supply.  This makes it topical and of at least some local interest.
> 
> 
> Perhaps consider that some of us do not dispute that fluoride helps to prevent dental caries, but are against the mass medication of a population, when the alternative exists of those wishing to use fluoride being able to do so as individuals. thus not infringing on the rights of those who prefer, for whatever reason, not to consume it.



Should vaccination also be a personal choice Julia?


----------



## Whiskers (21 March 2013)

medicowallet said:


> Whiskers resurrects this every now and then.




I'm baaack! 


Gees so many councils have now turned off fluoridation.

Bundaberg decided 9 to 1 not to fluoridate. I think that's about 10 councils now including Cairns and the Fraser Coast this year.

Pressure is mounting on Brisbane and Gold Coast... despite their mayors support for fluoridation, they will fall eventually.

Three cheers for keeping water as pure as possible.


----------



## saroq (23 March 2013)

Whiskers said:


> I would start by differentiating this thread "Fluoridation" from the previous "Fluoride" thread, in the sense that I accept there may be some benefit in fluoride products like tooth paste for some people if they choose to use them, but having our health bureaucrats demand we put filthy contaminated fluoride by-products in our drinking water is quite another.
> 
> From what I'm hearing at least two councils in the Burnett region have decided to turn off or not connect to fluoridation.
> 
> ...



There isn't any 'credible' counter information against fluoridation.  Information gathered by hours of "Google Research" by obsessed opponents of anti-fluoridation site run by the other untrained obsessed people doesn't count as "credible information."  

I've no objection to stopping fluoridation because of the cost and because fluoridation alternative are available that can by pass the water supply but to suggest that the anti-fluoridation group have credible information is the same as giving credence to the anti-vaccination nutters.


----------



## medicowallet (23 March 2013)

Julia said:


> Perhaps consider that some of us do not dispute that fluoride helps to prevent dental caries, but are against the mass medication of a population, when the alternative exists of those wishing to use fluoride being able to do so as individuals. thus not infringing on the rights of those who prefer, for whatever reason, not to consume it.




I for one will not relegate those less fortunate than myself to a lifetime of caries and the health ramifications of this, purely because I believe some crazy blog site..

There are a lot of additives to products.  Take chlorine in water for example.  Chlorine is a poison, highly toxic.

Perhaps we should stop chlorine being added to water?  Perhaps folate supplementation and iodine supplementation...  iodine is very dangerous as well.

Oxygen is toxic to the lungs, perhaps we should remove it from public places.

Perhaps we should remove carbon from our bodies, as apparently it causes warming

and we all know we cannot survive underwater so perhaps we should remove the water in out lungs.

..

Just because some people do not want a small amount of fluoride in their water, they are choosing to not allow the people who benefit from fluoridation, or those who choose to have fluoride in the water to benefit, and hence, it should be done on public health grounds, and not on political grounds or sensationalist grounds.

MW


----------



## Julia (23 March 2013)

It's about choice, MW
If you want to have fluoride, you are entirely free to dose yourself.
Fluoride in drinking water removes choice from those who do not want it.
Nothing complex about that.


----------



## medicowallet (24 March 2013)

Julia said:


> It's about choice, MW
> If you want to have fluoride, you are entirely free to dose yourself.
> Fluoride in drinking water removes choice from those who do not want it.
> Nothing complex about that.




No, you are clearly wrong about this in many areas. People are not afforded a choice in this.

Fluoridation helps and works. It is a public health initiative to help those who cannot afford, or cannot co-ordinate their own treatment.

A bit like chlorine in water, a bit like iodine in salt, a bit like vaccination programs.

These initiatives should NOT be held to ransom by a very small minority of people who have no idea.  If these people truly believe in a negative outcome either prove it, or they should take initiative and shock horror, avoid these particularly deadly poisons.

I am passionate about certain issues akin to this, as unfortunately the lay person has NFI, but due to well thought out campaigns by loonies, they are influenced into believing there is a problem..... autism and vaccination anyone?


MW


----------



## Julia (24 March 2013)

We disagree, MW.  That's fine with me.


----------



## medicowallet (24 March 2013)

Julia said:


> We disagree, MW.  That's fine with me.




And with respect, ditto.

I do however believe that with improved education, incomes etc the cost-benefit of fluoridation is wavering, and it is prudent to remove it when it is not viable..

I hope that this is what is happening in QLD, and not a tree-huggerish approach to public health... but of course, as we all know, vote buying can lead to moronic policy.


----------



## Whiskers (24 March 2013)

medicowallet said:


> And with respect, ditto.
> 
> I do however believe that with improved education, incomes etc the cost-benefit of fluoridation is wavering, and it is prudent to remove it when it is not viable..
> 
> I hope that this is what is happening in QLD, and not a tree-huggerish approach to public health... but of course, as we all know, vote buying can lead to moronic policy.




Hardly call it vote buying when the coalition voted in favor of fluoridation with the Bligh Government, albeit under some duress from it's then leadership.

What has happened is ground roots anger has caused many Nat politicians to reconsider the evidence, the cost effectivenes and the fundamental right of choice, which led to giving local councils the right to decide... and decide they are, not to fluoridate.

I will have more to say on this point later as promised earlier in the thread, but often less is more... ie less chemicals and drugs with our food makes our body work naturally, healthier and easier than the effort of processing complex chemicals, additives and toxins.


----------



## medicowallet (24 March 2013)

Whiskers said:


> Hardly call it vote buying when the coalition voted in favor of fluoridation with the Bligh Government, albeit under some duress from it's then leadership.
> 
> What has happened is ground roots anger has caused many Nat politicians to reconsider the evidence, the cost effectivenes and the fundamental right of choice, which led to giving local councils the right to decide... and decide they are, not to fluoridate.
> 
> I will have more to say on this point later as promised earlier in the thread, but often less is more... ie less chemicals and drugs with our food makes our body work naturally, healthier and easier than the effort of processing complex chemicals, additives and toxins.




You answered your own concern.... state politics is different to local politics.

Your last paragraph is just crazy, but as I said before, IF the cost benefit changes, sure review, but until then, let us keep safely providing fluoridation, and also chlorination and other treatments to ensure our water is of the best quality, and offers the greatest health benefits to the community...

and, we'll leave the crazy mumbo jumbo to the crazies..

MW


----------



## Whiskers (24 March 2013)

medicowallet said:


> Your last paragraph is just crazy,




Simple example... it's pretty obvious most of the western world is suffering from obesity, too much consumption of food, alcohol, drugs etc.

The solution is less consumption, especially the harmful stuff, then the unnecessairy stuff and finally just optominal amounts of the good stuff.

But, some in the chemical/drug company indoctrination espouse to consuming more drugs and chemicals to cause you to loose weight. 

Less (consumption) is more healthy.


----------



## medicowallet (25 March 2013)

Whiskers said:


> Simple example... it's pretty obvious most of the western world is suffering from obesity, too much consumption of food, alcohol, drugs etc.
> 
> The solution is less consumption, especially the harmful stuff, then the unnecessairy stuff and finally just optominal amounts of the good stuff.
> 
> ...




Um, that is the minority argument of drug companies etc.

What you WILL find wrt policy are public health initiatives, which promote healthy eating, exercise and education in making the right choices.

You see, even though people know they are doing wrong, they may not change, however there are those which can be changed.

This is where fluoridation is at a crossroads, and once those that can change to better oral hygeine practices do so, which is EXACTLY what I said before then, the public health initiative of fluoridation loses its cost benefit.

Once this happens, sure scrap it, until then, let us not let fantasy get in the way of reality.

Just like there is nothing you can do to stop some people being obese, and heck, if you could add a safe additive to food or water which has proven benefit in prevention of cardiovascular events/obesity, I am sure that it would happen.

MW..

PS Perhaps decreasing the use of that extra o would help as well.


----------



## Julia (25 March 2013)

medicowallet said:


> Just like there is nothing you can do to stop some people being obese, and heck, if you could add a safe additive to food or water which has proven benefit in prevention of cardiovascular events/obesity, I am sure that it would happen.



I'm sure I'll regret re-involvement in this, but what would be the effect of your 'safe additive to food or water which has proven benefit in prevention of cardiovascular events/obesi6ty" do to people who are not obese and who have no obvious risk factors with respect to cardiovascular events?

i.e. why would people who take care of themselves, eat and drink healthily, exercise well and have no genetic predisposition to cardiovascular events be obliged to consume any substance in the water supply?
It would P*** me off absolutely.


----------



## Calliope (25 March 2013)

Julia said:


> It would P*** me off absolutely.




Only if it was a diuretic.


----------



## medicowallet (25 March 2013)

Julia said:


> I'm sure I'll regret re-involvement in this, but what would be the effect of your 'safe additive to food or water which has proven benefit in prevention of cardiovascular events/obesi6ty" do to people who are not obese and who have no obvious risk factors with respect to cardiovascular events?
> 
> i.e. why would people who take care of themselves, eat and drink healthily, exercise well and have no genetic predisposition to cardiovascular events be obliged to consume any substance in the water supply?
> It would P*** me off absolutely.




But this would be like fluoride and have almost zero effects on those who consume it.... oh, if only we could find something so good for obesity, it would be a worldwide sensation, a smash hit, a revelation..

Guess that fluoride, with its teensy weensy risk of side effects and its proven benefits will have to suffice..

However my nobel prize winning, multibillion dollar additive discovery would also be subject to cost benefit analysis.... however I am sure the conspiracy theorists will claim that it is used in mind control..

I guess that those with the capacity to look after themselves can feel satisfied that this miracle supplement, whilst having a miniscule risk to themselves, is providing wonderful benefits to their fellow man..  and saving them money to boot...   This along with the current public health initiatives of course.

MW


----------



## sails (25 March 2013)

I see earlier in the thread that fluoride is considered a necessity like chlorine.  Chlorine is necessary to keep our water clean where as fluroide is an unnecessary additive.

While it may help some with stronger teeth, it is also possible some could have unwanted side effects from it.

From WebMD:



> Fluoride is safe for most people in the amounts added to public water supplies and used in toothpastes and mouthwashes, and applied by dentists. Low doses (up to 20 mg per day of elemental fluoride) of supplemental fluoride taken by mouth appear to be safe for most people. Higher doses are UNSAFE and can weaken bones and ligaments, and cause muscle weakness and nervous system problems. High doses of fluoride in children before their permanent teeth come through the gums can cause tooth discoloration.
> 
> Toothpaste and fluoride rinses should not be swallowed routinely, particularly by children. It’s a good idea to make sure that children under six years of age use only a pea-sized amount of fluoride-containing toothpaste, just in case they swallow some.
> Special Precautions & Warnings:
> Pregnancy and breast-feeding: Fluoride seems to be safe during pregnancy and breast-feeding when taken in doses below the tolerable upper intake level (UL) of 10 mg per day of elemental fluoride and when applied directly to the teeth in toothpastes and mouthwashes. But higher doses are UNSAFE and can weaken bones and ligaments, and cause muscle weakness and nervous system problems.




While low doses are not so likely to cause side effects - how do we really know?  We are not made the same and it could be that a lower dose could cause problems and weaken bones in one person more than another.

How do we know that the levels are properly regulated?  It also worries me that our toothpastes still have fluoride in them and we also get it in the water.  Particularly worrying for young children.

http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-suppl...gredientId=1068&activeIngredientName=FLUORIDE

And for those of us with osteoporisis, the addition of fluoride to the water is of concern.  He is an excerpt from the link below:



> 2) Clinical trials finding association between fluoride therapy and bone fracture. (Back to top)
> 
> Due to it's capacity to increase bone mass (see section 4), fluoride has been used since the 1960s as a treatment for osteoporosis, particularly spinal osteoporosis. However, despite approximately 40 years of use, fluoride treatment remains controversial and is no longer recommended by the US National Institutes of Health, Osteoporosis Society of Canada, and French Government among others.
> 
> ...




Much more to be read at the link: http://www.slweb.org/fluoride-bone.html#2


Like Julia, I may regret contributing to this conversation...  :couch


----------



## medicowallet (26 March 2013)

sails said:


> I see earlier in the thread that fluoride is considered a necessity like chlorine.  Chlorine is necessary to keep our water clean where as fluroide is an unnecessary additive.




But if we keep our bodies balanced, should we not be able to ward off bacteria, protozoa, viruses etc that we have for thousands of years?

I mean, why should we put such a DANGEROUS chemical like chlorine in our bodies?  I mean we are all made differently and react differently.

I know I do not want CHLORINE in my drinking water, and why should I not have a choice?   I cannot believe that chlorine, which is massively TOXIC to the human body is shoved down my throat to control my mind and to ensure that I require medical therapy for CANCER in the future... it is a conspiracy I say.

Wake up to this mass medication madness, and make sure that you lobby your local council to remove CHLORINE from the water, I mean, would you drink your pool water?  NO WAY!!

MW

CANCER I SAY
http://www.pure-earth.com/chlorine.html


----------



## Julia (26 March 2013)

MW, being facetious is unnecessary and counterproductive.  Sails raised genuine points of concern which deserve a less mocking response.


----------



## sails (26 March 2013)

Julia said:


> MW, being facetious is unnecessary and counterproductive.  Sails raised genuine points of concern which deserve a less mocking response.





Thanks Julia, but I had a laugh over MW's reply.  There are none so blind than those who refuse to see - or even look.  

Sadly, some doctors are out of of touch with reality and that's from experience.


----------



## medicowallet (26 March 2013)

sails said:


> Thanks Julia, but I had a laugh over MW's reply.  There are none so blind than those who refuse to see - or even look.
> 
> Sadly, some doctors are out of of touch with reality and that's from experience.




I make a joke out of it... a joke, get it?

Because, quite frankly, the argument is not even worth the waste of time that it is, as fluoridation has been around for soooo long..   and the conspiracy theorists only have to prove, once, that it is a problem for the legal teams to pull it out.

So, please, do not question my professionalism, as this is not an arena where it is relevant or warranted.

What do you for a living so I can pull it apart?

MW


----------



## Whiskers (27 March 2013)

medicowallet said:


> I make a joke out of it... a joke, get it?
> 
> Because, quite frankly, the argument is not even worth the waste of time that it is, as fluoridation has been around for soooo long..   and the conspiracy theorists only have to prove, once, that it is a problem for the legal teams to pull it out.
> 
> ...




Firstly, the fact that "fluoridation has been around for soooo long" isn't evidence of it's safety... just that it's been around for so long... which comes back to the earlier point that the fluoride waste disposal industry threw so much money at trying to change laws, to pay out civil suits with confidentially clauses, to stack regulatory and advisory positions including WHO committees with their own people so as to direct the type of research done regarding fluoridation via their terms of reference and controlling official funding, ie to get the results they wanted to promote. 

There is plenty of credible evidence that fluoride, especially fluoride that comes as an industrial by-product containing arsenic, lead, cadmium and other heavy metals or toxins is a health hazard, no matter how small the doseage. It's just that like asbestos, thalamide, DDT etc and particularly like the tobacco industry, they infiltrated the ranks of the regulatory and medical authorities to not only condem and discredit research against their product but to actually promote their knowingly toxic product in medical journals as safe. 

*Through advertisements appearing in the pages of medical journals for the first time in the 1930s, tobacco companies worked to develop close, mutually beneficial relationships with physicians and their professional organizations.* See  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/

Then of course they insert indemnity clauses into the fluoridation legislation to try to prevent anyone from suing the fluoridation industry. See The Qld Water Fluoridation Act 2008, Part 9 Matters relating to liability and indemnity sec 92 to 98. Sec 94 sums it up. 

*94   Protection from civil rights and remedies*
   A person does not have any civil right or remedy against a
   public potable water supplier in relation to the fluoridation of
   a public potable water supply under this Act.​
As I said in the outset, despite the evidence being there to show it wasn't safe, many products went into commercial distribution for considerable time before they were finally stopped. Asbestos and Tobacco are notable examples of how blatant lies and corruption of the health and regulatory systems gets deadly products into the consumers enviornment.

Secondly, while you deny the fact that the system is corruptable or at least able to be mislead by false research and advice, your "professionalism" is open to question by definition of history.

...and finally, this is no joking matter!


----------



## waza1960 (27 March 2013)

This whole thread is a joke IMO


----------



## AntN (27 March 2013)

*Re: 'The fluoridation fraud' is tin foil hat material*



waza1960 said:


> This whole thread is a joke IMO




lol your not wrong there...

The 'scare campaign' form the Dunning Kruger affected, is an embarrassment to the Australian education system. What is more embarrassing, is the people we vote in power consider such arguments of fallacy.

"trust me, I have an anecdotes from the internet"
lol


----------



## awg (27 March 2013)

If I am to believe what I read, and the balance of evidence from dentists and epidimiologic studies shows that public health is benefit, then I accept it for the "common good", (cost of public health treatment)..and my own & family teeth.(hopefully) 

Tooth decay is strongly correlated with other medical issues, especially heart disease.

It seems it is very easily feasible to opt out, by filtering ?, tank supply, or bottled water, if one felt strongly, or was especially susceptible to flouride, in mind or body.

So if one does not accept flouridation (for the common good, on balance of science)..does it follow that one is also opposed to vaccination ?


----------



## sails (27 March 2013)

awg said:


> ...So if one does not accept flouridation (for the common good, on balance of science)..does it follow that one is also opposed to vaccination ?




Very different, imo!  Fluoride is available in other forms such as toothpaste and tablets.  Vaccinations are not available in any other form.

And one is forced on to people through drinking water - the other is optional.


----------



## medicowallet (27 March 2013)

Well Whiskers,


It is well known that time is a factor in determining causality.   

As I said before, ONE study, conducted well, showing a net negative effect of fluoride would cause the powers to withdraw its use.   

Can you please show me a post where I said that the system is not corruptable, or if not, I accept your apology, and your retractment of your "professionalism" statement.

MW


----------



## medicowallet (27 March 2013)

sails said:


> Very different, imo!  Fluoride is available in other forms such as toothpaste and tablets.  Vaccinations are not available in any other form.
> 
> And one is forced on to people through drinking water - the other is optional.




That is a compelling argument, however, there are a lot of examples where things are forced upon the many for the greater good of the few, moderate good of the many and detriment of the few.

In this case, fluoride is about as benign an additive can be with proven health benefits for the community, with an option to not consume it (rain water / purchased water).

What the argument is, is that there are those in the community who cannot manage toothpaste and tablets optimally, and benefit from water with added fluoride.

MW


----------



## awg (28 March 2013)

sails said:


> Very different, imo!  Fluoride is available in other forms such as toothpaste and tablets.  Vaccinations are not available in any other form.
> 
> And one is forced on to people through drinking water - the other is optional.




I have to say I dont entirely agree

vaccinations, whilst not 100% compulsory, if declined, one faces various difficulties with enrolling kiddies in school/childcare, and also refusal of some govt family payments.

This is done to reduce the transmission of numerous diseases, to huge and proven public and private good.
I agree with this, but think that sometimes their is a reaction against the immunisation, maybe a tiny % have serious complications, but, on the whole the good way overwhelms the bad.

with respect to flouride, why would dentists be in favor ?...wouldnt rotted teeth mean more business for them?
I can only think that as ethical professionals in the area, they agree with the balance of scientific evidence that is is good for dental health.

Once again I repeat, how easy is it to avoid flouride...answer VERY EASY.(within reason)

You would also be avoiding doses of the following elements: Chlorine..a deadly poison added to kill microbes; copper and iron oxides..boy oh boy if you have seen the INSIDE walls of old water pipes, you would almost die of thirst before you let that muck into you. Also numerous heavy metals, fertilizer, pesticide etc as runoff into water supplies.

geez, have almost talked myself into a home filtration system

the OP has looked at this much more than me, made me curious, sounds like this issue will be opened to more debate, as I said in previous posts, it was my impression the science was conclusive, I could only be persuaded otherwise if properly debated by those qualified and evidence based


----------



## Whiskers (28 March 2013)

medicowallet said:


> Well Whiskers,
> 
> Can you please show me a post where I said that the system is not corruptable, or if not, I accept your apology, and your retractment of your "professionalism" statement.
> 
> MW




Just repeating what I said..."Secondly, while you deny the fact that the system is corruptable or at least able to be mislead by false research and advice, your "professionalism" is open to question by definition of history.

You have strongly implied a number of times that the advice of the health organisations and the research that they censor out and endorse is the only credible research and everything else is non credible rubbish... when there are numerous examples, a few of which I nominated such as asbestos, thalamide and tobacco where the health authorities were clearly in denial, misleading, unprofessional and corrupt. 

Is it not unprofessional for a medical professional to get emotionally charged, ranting "insulting" and "distasteful" in flatly denying historically medical corruption and malpractice has happened and insist the health organisations are above reproach!?


----------



## Whiskers (28 March 2013)

medicowallet said:


> Give me one good reason as to why the medical profession would want to harm people with fluoride.




This is the misconstrued question the pro-fluoridation lobby peddles to try to promote a ridiculous answer. 

The more reasonable question is...


awg said:


> ...with respect to flouride, why would dentists be in favor ?...wouldnt rotted teeth mean more business for them?
> I can only think that as ethical professionals in the area, they agree with the balance of scientific evidence that is is good for dental health.




to which the very logical and historically correct answer is...


boofis said:


> It's not that they would want to harm people, it's just that they might stand to gain something by not getting in the way.




The short explanation is two fold. Firstly, many dentists rely on advice and policy from the health organisations for indemnity from malpractice suits. So they follow the 'company' line.

Secondly, the American Dental Association carried out internal research to show that dentists made more revenue in fluoridated areas than unfluoridated... there was more money to be made treating fluorosis and associated effects from fluoridation than cavaties.  

The cost of filling or removal of a tooth pales into insignificance compared to regular whitening every year or new veneers every 10 or 15 years, as the attached average dental charges for 2011 in Australia show. http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/healthinsurance/whatiscovered/averagedental.htm

The way they justified the 'greater good' arguement for mass fluoridation is exactly the same as the tobacco industry used with a policy of:

Although hygienic and physiological concerns continued to be voiced, clinical medicine claimed that individual assessment and judgment was required.17 During this era, there was a strong tendency to avoid altogether causal hypotheses in matters so clearly complex. There was””and would remain””a powerful notion that risk is largely variable and thus, most appropriately evaluated and monitored at the individual, clinical level.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/​
...to tell their patients that fluorosis or plaque or stain was something peculiar to them .

The bottom line... they make more money from the effects of fluoridation while untruthfully insisting that fluorosis and staining is a minor side effect to be suffered by the few for the greater good. Fluorosis increases with fluoridation to well over 30% of people according to recent surveys.


----------



## medicowallet (28 March 2013)

Whiskers said:


> Just repeating what I said..."Secondly, while you deny the fact that the system is corruptable or at least able to be mislead by false research and advice, your "professionalism" is open to question by definition of history.
> 
> You have strongly implied a number of times that the advice of the health organisations and the research that they censor out and endorse is the only credible research and everything else is non credible rubbish... when there are numerous examples, a few of which I nominated such as asbestos, thalamide and tobacco where the health authorities were clearly in denial, misleading, unprofessional and corrupt.
> 
> Is it not unprofessional for a medical professional to get emotionally charged, ranting "insulting" and "distasteful" in flatly denying historically medical corruption and malpractice has happened and insist the health organisations are above reproach!?





Sigh (for the want of a decent understanding/interpretation of what I posted)

OK, there are 2 points to be made.

1. I (that's me) agreed that there is the possibility of corruption.

2. I infer that it is up to YOU to provide an opinion as to why the medical profession should want to intentionally be deceiptful wrt safety / cost-benefits.   

So go on, stop slandering, and provide some evidence.



You are trying to make a strawman argument.   I stand by my totally consistent position, and note that in the quoted post, you have failed to answer the question as to why someone in the medical profession would want to harm someone with fluoride.


----------



## medicowallet (28 March 2013)

Whiskers said:


> This is the misconstrued question the pro-fluoridation lobby peddles to try to promote a ridiculous answer.
> 
> The more reasonable question is...
> 
> ...




Oh dear, now I am truly worried about your health.

Do you truly believe this diatribe?

Show me the link to this "study" with american dentists earning more in fluoridated areas, and it better be matched for income, education, age and other confounders.  But I guess the conspiracy theory websites won't do that.

Your link to a fee structure is laughable, how does that prove anything??? really?

Sooooooo show me the evidence that fluoridation is bad again, because, as in the other thread, you cannot.

MW

PS this is quite fun actually.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 March 2013)

As a person with teeth and children.

I reckon anyone who is against fluoridation is a nutter.

All the evidence is in.

The cost/benefit/harm analysis is compelling.

Let us move on.

gg


----------



## Whiskers (29 March 2013)

Yes the evidence is in and it's no strawman arguement or diatribe... unless you consider the likes of;

*Chronic fluoride toxicity: dental fluorosis.*

_Denbesten P, Li W._

Department of Orofacial Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of California, San Francisco, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21701193​ 
published in 2011, as diatribal strawmen. The graph shown below gives a better understanding of the increasing fluorosis rate in the USA. As mentioned, other reports talk about the rate increasing to over 30%.

The blue bars are the 1986/87 USA national survey and the green is the 1999 - 2004. 

What is noticable is the considerable decrease of people unaffected or questionable and significant increase in mild to severe percentage of fluorosis... and this is not even from the beginning of fluoridation in the USA. 

So, before I get drawn into the changing dynamics of the financials of dentistry with fluoridation, lets establish that fluoridation means a considerable increase of fluorosis to start with.


----------



## sails (29 March 2013)

And this is what dental fluorosis looks like:





http://www.google.com.au/imgres?img...t5UUZSSD8i7kgW6sYGoCg&ved=0CEYQ9QEwAg&dur=585

Oh, and I should add - I'm not against fluoride - just don't think it's right to force it on to everyone when it can be taken in other ways.  Like most additives, there can be side effects.


----------



## medicowallet (31 March 2013)

Whiskers said:


> Yes the evidence is in and it's no strawman arguement or diatribe... unless you consider the likes of;
> 
> *Chronic fluoride toxicity: dental fluorosis.*
> 
> ...




Very nice article.  

"Prevention of Dental Fluorosis

Dental fluorosis can be limited or prevented by following the ‘recommended limits for fluoride exposure’, suggested by US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [20]. The reference dose suggested by USEPA is 0.06 mg fluoride/kg/ day, which is the estimate of daily exposure that is likely to be without any appreciable risk of deleterious effects (any degrees of dental fluorosis) during a lifetime [20]."

" When the level of fluoride is above 1.5 mg/l (1.5 ppm) in drinking water, dental fluorosis can occur."

". In 2000, approximately 162 million people (65.8% of the population served by public water systems) received water that contained fluoride ranging from 0.7 to 1.2 mg/l (usually 1 mg/l), depending on the local climate."

"Even a small ‘pea-sized’ amount of toothpaste containing 1,450 ppm fluoride, would contain approximately 0.36–0.72 mg fluoride, which if consumed twice a day could contribute to fluoride levels that would increase the risk of dental fluorosis in children [26]. "

(excluding fluoride from other sources)

So a child drinking approx 1.5 L of water per day or brushing teeth twice per day (with inappropriate toothpaste).

Or an average sized adult drinking 4.2L of water per day..

To meet the limits specified in the study above... but hey, let's take Townsville, where some of our more esteemed participants grew up.

http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/resident/water/Documents/Fluoridation.pdf

Does that not say approx 0.6-0.7mg/L  so that would be for an adult   6.5L of water per day.

MW

PS and this is using your favoured fluorosis as the endpoint, hardly that serious especially for the more minor categories (insert response as to the severity of fluorosis according to you (insert response about endocarditis etc by me))

Also,

check out:    Fluoride and environmental health: a review
David L. Ozsvath       Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2009) 8:59–7


----------



## sptrawler (31 March 2013)

I haven't bought into this arguement so far, very unlike me.

Well here we go.
Our children for the first few years grew up on a rural block with nothing but rainwater.
They had no tooth decay problems whatsoever and still don't.
My better half who has some qualifications in this field, believes tooth decay can be laid at the feet of sugar.


----------



## Whiskers (2 April 2013)

medicowallet said:


> Very nice article.
> http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/resident/water/Documents/Fluoridation.pdf
> 
> Does that not say approx 0.6-0.7mg/L  so that would be for an adult   6.5L of water per day.
> ...




Actually, under section 6 of the Qld Water Fluoridation Regulation 2008, it says it's to be maintained at .7mg/l for Townsville and .8mg/l for all the south east of Qld.



> PS and this is using your favoured fluorosis as the endpoint, hardly that serious especially for the more minor categories




Not if you are one of the;

35 million americans with 'very mild' fluorosis
14 million with 'mild' fluorosis, or
7.2 million with 'moderate or severe' fluorosis.



sptrawler said:


> Our children for the first few years grew up on a rural block with nothing but rainwater.
> They had no tooth decay problems whatsoever and still don't.




Same here sptrawler, grew up with, prefer and continue to use tank water with good teeth.



> My better half who has some qualifications in this field, believes tooth decay can be laid at the feet of sugar.



She is absolutely correct... but that brings me back to the point about being conditioned to an overly 'consumption' based economy and lifestyle. As individuals we need to rebell against the indoctrination that we need to keep consuming something extra like drugs or fluoride to cure our ill's, when more often the healthier, more sustainable solution is to consume less of what is causing our ill's, such as sugar, salt, fat, tobacco and alcohol.


----------



## medicowallet (2 April 2013)

Whiskers said:


> Actually, under section 6 of the Qld Water Fluoridation Regulation 2008, it says it's to be maintained at .7mg/l for Townsville and .8mg/l for all the south east of Qld.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




1. at 0.8 it is equal to drinking 5.25L of water per day... so your argument is????

2. So please, explain to me how your millions have been proven to be due to fluoridation of water, and not other causes, such as toothpaste, or naturally occurring fluoride.

3. Please calculate how much fluoride needs to be added to a water supply with 5mg/L to make it 0.7mg/L..

4. I am glad that you think that your choice is the best for everyone, but the public health policy makers differ, base their decisions on best evidence, and don't condemn those less fortunate than themselves to poorer health outcomes on the whim of a fruity website.

MW

PS good try, but thanks for providing a study which clearly shows that water fluoridation at levels that we have is quite safe.. haha.


----------



## Whiskers (2 April 2013)

medicowallet said:


> 2. So please, explain to me how your millions have been proven to be due to fluoridation of water, and not other causes, such as toothpaste, or naturally occurring fluoride.




You really don't get the obvious MW!?

The environment is becoming contimanated with fluoride from numerous sources that people often cannnot detect for themselves causing increased fluorosis. 

The research also says fluoridation is the easiest to eliminate. In any case the health authorities must allow for fluoride exposure from other sources in their fluoridation rate. 

Toothpaste: How often and prominently do toothpaste makers warn that children swallowing toothpaste causes dental fluorosis? Almost never.

Naturally Occuring Fluoride: Well if it's truly naturally occuring in the water supply, air or food chain, again, the responsibility is on the fluoridating authority to decrease the rate or stop adding fluoride completely where people are being over exposed to fluoride. 

More often it's not naturally ocurring, but artifical fluoride contaminating the natural environment. Take the 98 or 99% of fluoridated water that is not ingested, ie goes to bath, garden and wash the car etc? It gets back into underground water and irrigation supplies and has a cumulative effect of contaminating the natural environment and food chain. 

The bottom line is fluoridation is ultimately responsible for the 7.2 million extra people with severe fluorosis in the US from 1986 to 2004 and 49 million extra with mild or very mild fluorosis.

Equated to Australias population, that's well over 500,000 people who can look forward to severe fluorosis in the same circumstances and 3.5 million to mild or very mild fluorosis.


Next, using the costs from http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/healthinsurance/whatiscovered/averagedental.htm


consider how many extractions and fillings you have and add up the cost 

Then assuming you were one of the unlucky ones who had fluorosis... tally the cost of annual or biannual whitening treatments for the same period as above. 

Thirdly, tally the cost of dental veneers every 5 and 10 years for the same period as above.

To be continued...


----------



## medicowallet (2 April 2013)

Whiskers said:


> You really don't get the obvious MW!?




No I don't get.

1. That fluoride naturally occurs in water supplies etc.
2. That the study you provided shows that toothpaste application exposes children to great fluoride burden.
3. That fluoride levels in water supplies are within acceptable limits for efficacy vs side effects.
4. That you blurt out figures with no causation evidence, and no epidemiological backing (heard of cause and effect, heard of comparing matched groups wrt fluorosis... and I mean matched groups)

gee, some of your last post claims are truly amazing, and unsubstantiated.

MW


----------



## medicowallet (2 April 2013)

http://docs.health.vic.gov.au/docs/doc/FC530C0F87F821F6CA257868007AD578/$FILE/US%20HHS%20proposal%20WEB.pdf

"the widespread use of low-fluoride children’s
toothpastes in Australia, which has markedly reduced
the prevalence of dental fluorosis (mottling of tooth
enamel) in Australia (the unavailability of these
toothpastes in the US is a significant reason for the US
proposal to reduce the fluoride level in water fluoridation
programs in the US)"

"Low-fluoride children’s toothpastes
In the early 1990s low-fluoride children’s toothpastes were
introduced in Australia for children aged under six years.3
These were introduced to reduce the prevalence of
dental fluorosis (mottling of tooth enamel), which can
sometimes occur if too much fluoride is ingested.3 Since
their introduction, low-fluoride children’s toothpastes have
significantly reduced the prevalence of dental fluorosis
in Australia, so that now, if dental fluorosis does occur in
Australia, it is almost always very mild or mild.4 Awareness
raising of appropriate toothpaste use by children (using
it under supervision, using a pea-sized amount smeared
over the brush, spitting out and not swallowing) has also
played a part in reducing dental fluorosis in Australia.4
Importantly, these low-fluoride children’s toothpastes
are not available in the US.5 Dental fluorosis is not
a public health issue in Australia because of the
very high proportion of children using low-fluoride
children’s toothpastes.4"

"High naturally occurring fluorides in some
US water supplies
All water supplies contain some natural fluoride.6
In Australia most water supplies have low levels of
natural fluoride that do not confer dental health benefits.7
In the US, however, a small but significant number of
people consume water that is naturally highly fluoridated8 –
sometimes several times the level used in water fluoridation
programs in Australia.
The low levels of fluoride in Australian drinking water
supplies is another reason why dental fluorosis is not
a public health issue in Australia."

"fluorosis, it is important to note
that studies reveal that development of dental fluorosis
is more closely related to fluoride toothpaste and tooth
brushing practices than to water fluoridation.14,15 In other
words it is more important to address toothpaste and
tooth brushing issues, rather than reducing fluoride
concentration in water fluoridation programs, in order
to tackle a reported increase in dental fluorosis."

Hmm...


----------



## Whiskers (2 April 2013)

That note in some research is fine, MW... but what is more important is what actually happens in the real world.

How often and prominently do toothpaste makers warn in their adverts or packaging that children swallowing toothpaste causes dental fluorosis? Almost never.


----------



## medicowallet (2 April 2013)

Whiskers said:


> That note in some research is fine, MW... but what is more important is what actually happens in the real world.
> 
> How often and prominently do toothpaste makers warn in their adverts or packaging that children swallowing toothpaste causes dental fluorosis? Almost never.




I have no idea how often an prominently makers advertise this fact.

But I do have an idea that fluorosis is linked to it, and that our drinking water levels are within acceptable levels.

I wonder if you are barking up the wrong tree, and perhaps it would be more prudent to have a go at toothpaste manufacturers and toothbrushing techniques and education?

MW

PS I am sensing a change in position?


----------



## Whiskers (3 April 2013)

medicowallet said:


> I have no idea how often an prominently makers advertise this fact.
> 
> But I do have an idea that fluorosis is linked to it, and that our drinking water levels are within acceptable levels.
> 
> ...




You raised and started barking up the issue of incorrect toothpaste use as a cause of fluorosis. 

I'm just re-construing your mischievously, misconstrued questions and points you've designed to advocate a silly conclusion, to keep the issue on point.


MW, do the exercise for us.

...using the costs from http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/heal...ragedental.htm

•consider how many extractions and fillings you have and add up the cost
•Then assuming you were one of the unlucky ones who had fluorosis... tally the cost of annual or biannual whitening treatments for the same period as above.
•Thirdly, tally the cost of dental veneers every 5 and 10 years for the same period as above.


To be continued...


----------



## medicowallet (3 April 2013)

MW, do the exercise for us.



•consider how many extractions and fillings you have and add up the cost
•Then assuming you were one of the unlucky ones who had fluorosis... tally the cost of annual or biannual whitening treatments for the same period as above.
•Thirdly, tally the cost of dental veneers every 5 and 10 years for the same period as above.

additionally

consider the cost of valvular heart disease
consider the cost of poor nutrition
consider the cost of training extra oral health practitioners

etc etc 

Sorry, but your economic study misplaces not only a vast majority of the positives of fluoridation, but also many of the negatives.

Back to the drawing board for you.

MW


----------



## Whiskers (4 April 2013)

MW, you are behaving like the class twit... pay attention! 

The case-in-point atm is how dentists could gain from the changing dynamics of services because of increased fluorosis with fluoridation.

Do, you assigned homework like a good boy. 



> ...using the costs from http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/heal...ragedental.htm
> 
> •consider how many extractions and fillings you have and add up the cost
> •Then assuming you were one of the unlucky ones who had fluorosis... tally the cost of annual or biannual whitening treatments for the same period as above.
> ...


----------



## medicowallet (4 April 2013)

Whiskers said:


> MW, you are behaving like the class twit... pay attention!
> 
> The case-in-point atm is how dentists could gain from the changing dynamics of services because of increased fluorosis with fluoridation.
> 
> Do, you assigned homework like a good boy.




But Mrs Whiskers, the homework is flawed and you know it.

I know, after the schooling I just gave you above, that you are just playing now. 

How about letting go of your poorly chosen position, and acknowledge that your theories are just fantasy land stuff designed by nutters..   

Once again... show me ONE good study supporting your position, and I will be convinced... because you have only provided ONE good study, and it supported mine lol.

MW


----------

