# Fluoride



## Julia (7 December 2007)

The Queensland government has announced it will put fluoride in the water supply from next year.

Quite apart from the moral issue of mass medicating the whole population, I cannot drink fluoridated water for various other health related reasons.

Does anyone know of a filter system which will remove fluoride?

Has anyone successfully fought local or State governments on this issue?

So far I've just come up against the predictable bureaucratic brick wall.

Any input would be appreciated.


----------



## wayneL (7 December 2007)

Julia said:


> The Queensland government has announced it will put fluoride in the water supply from next year.
> 
> Quite apart from the moral issue of mass medicating the whole population, I cannot drink fluoridated water for various other health related reasons.
> 
> ...



 I could go on an extended rant about this...

Try looking as reverse osmosis Julia, not 100% sure but I think it will get rid of flouride... and fits under the sink.


----------



## doctorj (7 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> I could go on an extended rant about this...



Shhhh... don't mention the war...


----------



## disarray (7 December 2007)

i would like to hear downsides of this. in sydney the water has been fluorided forever and parents etc. tout it as having improved dental health for everyone so its a non-issue here. rant away 

sydney waters filtration process is here


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2007)

disarray said:


> i would like to hear downsides of this. in sydney the water has been fluorided forever and parents etc. tout it as having improved dental health for everyone so its a non-issue here. rant away
> 
> sydney waters filtration process is here



The issue is not dental health.


----------



## Pat (8 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> The issue is not dental health.



Thats my councils argument


----------



## BlingBling (8 December 2007)

No flouride in the water here in Japan and have a look at everyone's teeth! Bloody disgusting..


----------



## Julia (8 December 2007)

Thanks, Wayne, at least for a suggestion.  Will look into it.

As Wayne has said, the issue is not dental health.  If people want to use fluoride to protect their teeth they can easily add it themselves.  It is not necessary to mass medicate the whole population so that those of us who cannot drink fluoridated water are deprived of a basic need.
Also it seems pretty stupid to water our gardens and flush our toilets with fluoride.


----------



## Flying Fish (8 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Thanks, Wayne, at least for a suggestion.  Will look into it.
> 
> As Wayne has said, the issue is not dental health.  If people want to use fluoride to protect their teeth they can easily add it themselves.  It is not necessary to mass medicate the whole population so that those of us who cannot drink fluoridated water are deprived of a basic need.
> Also it seems pretty stupid to water our gardens and flush our toilets with fluoride.




How do you easily add flourine to your own water?


----------



## moneymajix (8 December 2007)

*"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not all time."
- Robert Carton, Ph.D., Toxicologist*


*
Julia,*

Use rainwater (via tank) or bore water if possible.



*Fluoride Stupidy and Population Control*

http://www.preferrednetwork.com/FLUORIDE_STUPIDITY.htm




> Sodium fluoride, a hazardous-waste by-product from the manufacture of aluminum, is a common ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, anesthetics, hypnotics, psychiatric drugs, and military nerve gas. It's historically been quite expensive to properly dispose of, until some aluminum industries with an overabundance of the stuff sold the public on the terrifically insane but highly profitable idea of buying it at a 20,000% markup, injecting it into our water supplies, and then DRINKING it.







> Let's begin at the beginning: The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany's Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride's supposed effect on children's teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" by Joseph Borkin.)






*Fluoride is a Deadly Poison*

http://www.bragg.com/healthinfo/fluoridepoisonFS.html



> Millions of Americans drink water spiked with a sodium fluoride solution. A chemical cousin of sodium, fluorine is not as toxic as "Hex" . . . but toxic enough, in high concentrations, to be used as a standard roach and rat killer and a deadly pesticide.






If anyone really wants to consume toxic fluoride then they can buy flouride tablets and add to their water.

Why do people who don't want fluoride have to have it?  It is undemocratic, imo.

Who is going to benefit from the QLD government spend of $35 million?



*"TELL A LIE LOUD ENOUGH AND LONG ENOUGH AND PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE IT."
(Adolph Hitler)*


PS: Check out the internet for more information.


----------



## sam76 (8 December 2007)

BlingBling said:


> No flouride in the water here in Japan and have a look at everyone's teeth! Bloody disgusting..




you beat me to it Bling Bling


----------



## spottygoose (8 December 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> How do you easily add flourine to your own water?




All you need to do is make sure your kids brush with fluoride toothpaste or give them fluoride drops/tablets if you are concerned. I am with Julia we shouldn't be mass medicated and some dentists will tell you fluoride actually mottles teeth of adults as it is only "beneficial" in kids teeth. For those that are chemically sensitive particularly to fluoride they can suffer all sorts of side effects from having to drink, bathe and have their food subjected to fluoridated water.


----------



## spottygoose (8 December 2007)

Oh and I also read that reverse osmosis is the way to rid it from drinking water. Won't help you in terms of showering etc though.


----------



## Yeti (8 December 2007)

doctorj said:


> Shhhh... don't mention the war...




LOL, you mentioned it once, but I think you got away with it....


----------



## Knobby22 (8 December 2007)

moneymajix said:


> *"Fl
> 
> Fluoride Stupidy and Population Control
> 
> ...



*

That's what the Queensland population gets for voting out the conservatives. You will all believe the adds next time.

(Give me a break, there all sorts of minerals in water and the anti fluoride argument is always so poorly promoted and usually supported by the same people who say we shouldn't be protected against German Measles and Whooping Cough.)*


----------



## Yeti (8 December 2007)

I believe we have yet to outsmart nature and so I find the answer to most questions related to food, drink and health by simply asking myself what nature would have intended, and that is the way to go. I am convinced that eventually we will find there is no need to make it any more complicated than that. Tooth decay in modern society is related to diet (sugar etc) and lifestyle, it is not caused by a lack of poison in the water we drink. A friend of mine  put together the attached excellent one page information leaflet:-


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 December 2007)

I'm not sure how to remove it from the water, but there's a fairly easy way to settle the debate about whether or not it has improved dental health.

I'm pretty sure that Tas was the first state to add it to water supplies since fluoride is a by-product of Bell Bay so it was easily available.

And Brisbane hasn't, at least until now, had flouride in the water.

So can anyone find some proper statistics on dental health in Tas and Qld 50 years ago versus now? To support the pro-fluoride argument, tooth decay ought to have fallen significantly in Tas relative to Qld over that time. 

If you wanted to avoid it then tank water would seem the easy option assuming you own the property.


----------



## Happy (8 December 2007)

Julia said:


> If people want to use fluoride to protect their teeth they can easily add it themselves.  It is not necessary to mass medicate the whole population so that those of us who cannot drink fluoridated water are deprived of a basic need.
> Also it seems pretty stupid to water our gardens and flush our toilets with fluoride.




I saw few programs on TV regarding fluoride in town water.
Apparently dentists association in QLD were behind the push for fluoride in town water as tooth decay was of beyond alarming proportions.

True, all because of laziness, fad power drinks highly enamel corrosive, general consumption of sweet fizzle drinks, coke and even consumption of milk just before bed time coupled with inadequate or total lack of teeth brushing.

I also wander how does it affect car paint?


----------



## Yeti (8 December 2007)

Excellent and informative post, thanks moneymajics. You have obviously taken the time to do your homework on this subject.

Hope you don't mind me posting another quote from the first article you linked to in your post:



> I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine--any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically." - CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October 1954.




Wow! If I had any doubts, that all by itself would be enough to make me decide to give fluoridated water a very wide berth.


----------



## Knobby22 (8 December 2007)

Can anyone point me to any scientific studies or any other basis beside assertion? At present there only seems to be crackpot argument.


----------



## Julia (8 December 2007)

Knobby22 said:


> Can anyone point me to any scientific studies or any other basis beside assertion? At present there only seems to be crackpot argument.




Knobby, this doesn't constitute a scientific study.  I spent one month in an area where there is fluoride in the water.  My teeth at the end of that time were so brown with fluorosis that they looked rotten.  Not just a "faint, almost indiscernible mottling" as the pro fluoride lobby suggests, but dark, solid brown.  Had to get them all veneered.  

I had no idea what had happened until I went to the dentist on arriving home and he immediately deduced that I had been drinking fluoridated water.

This only affects a small proportion of the population, but it is a very real concern to those who are affected.

I am utterly delighted for everyone who wants to consume fluoride to do so.
It is easy to add it via fluoride tablets.  It should not be forced on the rest of us.

I'm with Happy's comment that too many children are for ever sucking on sweet drinks/corrosive fruit juice and other varieties of poor nutrition.

I don't see that the principle is too different from saying that because such a high proportion of the population appears to be depressed these days, then we should all consume anti depressants in our water supply.

Or cholesterol-lowering agents because so many people refuse to modify their diet and exercise to bring their risk of heart disease down.

Or any other number of similar examples.


----------



## Yeti (8 December 2007)

Knobby22 said:


> At present there only seems to be crackpot argument.




Thank you for that contribution Knobby. I am just wondering who exactly you are calling a crackpot here?


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 December 2007)

Best thing I ever did for my teeth was get a battery powered (rechargeable) toothbrush.

Seriously, I thought the idea was a bit of a gimmick, but there's no way in practice that a manual brush does anywhere near as well. In theory maybe, but not in practice.

Cost about $40. They only seem to last about 2 years but that's real cheap dental care IMO.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (8 December 2007)

this stuff about poison is rediculous many substances we put into our bodies are poisonous in big enough quantities including good old salt! the benefits of the micro levels we get in water compared to the minor side effects are well worth it. Its about quality of life i would prefer to have good teeth for 50-70 years and then have a slight increase in risk of adverse health effects than have all my teeth pulled by the age of 30!

I would be more worried about the highly toxic cancer causing fumes from plastics in new cars or the fact that since humans started making dioxins the world average levels have increased rapidly. This analogy of nazis using fluride come on they also used chlorine how many people have swum in pools not to mention the fact that chlorine is used to steralise water aswell


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 December 2007)

Reiterating on what was said earlier, adding fluoride to water is not the way to curb tooth decay. Teeth remain healthy with regular flossing, brushing and low sugar diet.



> Its about quality of life i would prefer to have good teeth for 50-70 years and then have a slight increase in risk of adverse health effects *than have all my teeth pulled by the age of 30!*




Rubbish.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 December 2007)

Yeti said:
			
		

> --any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically." - CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October 1954.



m8, I guess us baby boomers can all sit back and wonder what we've been like if we hadn't drunk the stuff for 40 years or whatever - 

but I guess that goes for a few other liquids we've drunk over the years as well lol. 

Most Gen X have surely had it since their teens (v approx)?

Most Gen Y kids have drunk it all their lives - yes?

PS What are they gonna call the generation after Z? 
or don't we anticipate a generation after Z..

PS More Gen X than Boomers ? - no wonder there was a recent change of govt lol. 

http://www.learningtolearn.sa.edu.au/Colleagues/files/links/UnderstandingGenY.pdf


----------



## ajoz (8 December 2007)

Have a look at the following link about Tooth Decay Trends in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries

http://fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html






Furthermore:

"As of April 7th, 1997, the United States FDA (Food & Drug Administration) has required that all fluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S. carry a poison warning on the label. The warning cautions toothpaste users to: *"WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately."*

"Interestingly, "despite" the fact that the vast majority of western Europe does not fluoridate its water despite the fact that children's toothpaste with lower fluoride levels are more common, Europe's tooth decay rates are as low - if not lower - than the tooth decay rates in the heavily fluoridated United States."

http://www.totalwellnessnetwork.com/dont-swallow-your-toothpaste.html

The problem I see with adding fluoride to water is that you can't control individual doses. We are admonished to drink more water. So the more you drink the more you ingest. What about your food that is prepared with that water or other beverages you drink that are made from this water all adding to the total amount consumed. If you enjoy a hot shower than the gases are also inhaled.

The graph above shows that there seems to be no real difference in dental problems in those countries that don't add fluoride and that the real difference seems to me to be better dental hygiene.


----------



## Julia (8 December 2007)

Knobby22 said:


> Can anyone point me to any scientific studies or any other basis beside assertion? At present there only seems to be crackpot argument.




Could you please explain just what you have decided is "crackpot argument".

Also, how exactly have you deduced that those against fluoridated water are the same people who are against vaccinations such as Whooping Cough and Measles?

I, for one, am not opposed but am in favour of vaccinations for the above two diseases.  But I fail to see your point.  Vaccinations are individually given and are therefore a choice.  Putting fluoride in the water supply is rendering a basic human right in a first world country  (drinking water supply) inaccessible to those of us who are adversely affected by fluoride.

Do you think that's fair?


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2007)

ajoz said:


> Have a look at the following link about Tooth Decay Trends in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries
> 
> http://fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html
> 
> ...




Good find ajoz,

Shows that fluoridation is bollox.


----------



## Whiskers (9 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> Good find ajoz,
> 
> Shows that fluoridation is bollox.




I was quite unconcerned about this flouridation debate. But having read some of these posts and particularly looking at ajoz's graph and noticing how much of the world does not use it... the best thing I can say for the moment is, I'm pleased I am in a rural area and have rain water.

Was planning for a retirement place on the coast somewhere, but it looks like I might have to make that with rain water tanks also.


----------



## disarray (9 December 2007)

having grown up with it i never thought about it. when it rains the water soaks the earth then the excess runs down the catchment areas into the dams. along the way the water picks up agricultural runoff, rubbish, animal waste, rubber and oil from roads and all the other crap a city of over 4 million people generates, and it dumps this into our water supply.

all of this means sydneys drinking water is often hit by algae blooms and cryptosporidium and giardia so it isn't very clean to begin with. then the government run it through the treatment process and generally deliver clean water. having experienced domestic water in a lot of places, sydney does rank highly for having a good, clean and reliable domestic water supply.

fluoride has been added here since the 60's and there haven't been any adverse effects that anyone has spoken of, unless there is a conspiracy or something nutty like that. given the amount of pollutants we take in every day its probably nothing in the great scheme of things anyway, but why mess with something if it doesn't need it?


----------



## Kimosabi (9 December 2007)

Flouride is chemical waste that was also used by the nazi's to pacify the prisoners in their concentration camps.

Bad teeth are primarily caused by poor nutrition...

If you have to buy food at the supermarket, buy food from the outside of the supermarket, avoid the processed crap in the middle of the supermarket, but ideally, consume raw, locally grown, organic food.

People who do this have missing teeth regrow, enamel get thicker, fillings fall out and the tooth regrows, etc, etc.


----------



## sam76 (9 December 2007)

what doesn't kill you can only make you stronger.


----------



## Whiskers (9 December 2007)

The thing that has now got me a bit worried is that fluoride is one of those elements that accumulate in the body. That alone is enough to set off alarm bells for me and err on the side of caution by not consuming the stuff for the time being.


Geeez, I'm even starting to have second thoughts about using toothpaste now.


----------



## Julia (9 December 2007)

Whiskers said:


> The thing that has now got me a bit worried is that fluoride is one of those elements that accumulate in the body. That alone is enough to set off alarm bells for me and err on the side of caution by not consuming the stuff for the time being.
> 
> 
> Geeez, I'm even starting to have second thoughts about using toothpaste now.




Whiskers, plenty of toothpaste without fluoride, thank heavens.


----------



## Whiskers (9 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Whiskers, plenty of toothpaste without fluoride, thank heavens.




Hope so Julia. Just noticed, I use Colgate and it's .22% fluoride. 

I have held an Agricultural Chemicals Accredited Users Certificate and what I find strange in light of a brief perusal of some research is that there is a note on the tube that says "NO COLGATE TOOTHPASTE CONTAINS SUGAR", *BUT* there is not a warning to avoid swallowing the stuff.

Since children are are most suseptable to fluoride poisining, I would have thought that would be a heck of a lot more important than 'no colgate toothpaste contains sugar'. One would have thought that was a no brainer.


----------



## ajoz (9 December 2007)

Here is a link to a web site by Dr. Mercola about the dangers of fluoride. 
http://search.mercola.com/Results.aspx?q=fluoride

The frightening part about this whole thing is that a great deal of trust is placed by most people in scientists, doctors and officials, yet there are numerous times when drugs that were approved had to be recalled such as vioxx, thalidomide and recently Children's Cough Medicine.

*The Fluoride Controversy*
By Dr. Ted Spence

Fluoride is a very controversial topic, but how controversial I did not realize. The data reveals that fluoride is a chemical toxin. As you can see by my studies and degrees, I place a large amount of confidence in nutritional methods for over coming disease and place little in toxic drugs, synthetic chemicals and especially toxins, like fluoride.

A few years ago, I was asked by the head of our local health department to conduct a review of existing journal research on the toxicity of fluoride with emphasis on its cancer causing potential. I went to the National Medical Library and produced for him some 40 articles on the toxicity of fluoride. When we reviewed them, there was some discrepancy in whether or not fluoride was mutagenic.

Well, half of the articles said that it was and half said that it was not. But it can not be both ways ... We wondered what was wrong. *Then the element of bias entered the picture, since Proctor and Gamble has paid for some of the "negative-concluding" research.* We were still puzzled.

My only goal is to tell this information to the patients and let them decide. Isn’t that fair ... after all it is their decision? It is the patient’s choice ... isn’t it? The toxicity of fluoride has caused many countries to rethink the fluoride issue and many have rescinded fluoride in favor of the health of their people.

*Those banning fluoride are Sweden, Norway, Denmark, West Germany (now unified), Italy, Belgium, Austria, France, and The Netherlands.* Despite these retractions of fluoride, the US still presses on with the goal to fluoridate (poison) every community water supply in the United States.

All allopathically-trained dentists are very familiar with the ADA and other "authoritative" positions on fluoride. They rarely mention its toxic potential or the few studies revealing increased tooth decay after fluoride use. The research of Burk and Yiamouyiannis revealed that *every major city with fluoride had increased rates of cancer*. Not a fair trade for "good looking teeth".

If you don’t want to look at this data, that is your decision. As health professionals, we don’t want to harm patients in any way and fluoride produces great harm. I am referring to taking fluoride internally, where it has been found to cause unscheduled DNA synthesis, sister chromatid exchanges and yes, mutagenic effects on the cells.

These terms may not bother some people at all, but they mean that there will be an increase in cancer after the ingestion of fluoride. Tsutsui, et al found that the addition of fluoride to healthy liver cell, in vitro, could establish changes that can only be described as cancerous.

The ADA’s official position is that this stuff is safe, yet there have been deaths of children in the dentists office due to fluoride, albeit very few. The point I am trying to make is that this is not to be taken lightly. In a letter [to me] from the ADA apologizing for fluoride, that stated, "There are three basic compounds commonly used for fluoridating drinking water supplies in the United States: sodium fluoride, sodium silicofluoride, and hydrofluorosilicic acid."

Now any chemist can tell you that these are not the sodium fluoride we are all told about. Sodium hydrofluorosilicic acid is one of the most reactive chemical species know to man. Its toxicity is known in many chemical circles. It will eat through metal/ plastic pipes and corrode many materials including stainless steel and other metals. It will dissolve rubber tires and melt concrete. This is added to our water to produce "healthy teeth".

Fluoride Does the Following:

    inactivates 62 enzymes (Judd)
    increases the aging process (Yiamouyiannis)
    increases the incidence of cancer and tumor growth (Waldbott/Yiamouyiannis)
    disrupts the immune system (Waldbott)
    causes genetic damage (Tsutsui, et al)
    interrupts DNA repair-enzyme activity (Waldbott)
    increased arthritis and
    is a systemic poison.

"Fluoride is a highly toxic substance.... "

L P Anthony, DDS editor of the Journal of the American Dental Association - 1944

Funny how times change, but truth does not change.

"....we have very strong circumstantial evidence of systemic toxicity of the so-called absolutely safe concentrate of fluoridated water"

Roy E Hanford, MD, "Where is Science Taking US? reprint from Saturday Review

"Don't drink fluoridated water .... Fluoride is a corrosive poison which will produce harm on a long term basis." Dr Charles Heyd, Past AMA president

Some 61,000 cancer deaths in the US result from fluoridation each year. I repeat 61,000. (Burk and Yiamouyiannis) One study found that fluoride elevates cancer mortality 17% in 16 years in large cities. (from Gerald Judd, PhD) "You have been led to believe the fluorine makes teeth harder. The fact is, it actually makes teeth softer." (George Meinig, a founder of the American Academy of Endodontics)

The US sees a 22% increase in decay every 16 years from fluoride use and a 50% decline in decay every 20 years compared with Finland's 98%, Sweden's 80% and Holland's 72%. And they are non-fluoridated. (Gerald Judd)

My only goal is to tell the truth about the ill-effects of a known toxin. I mentioned the paper being published by the Health Freedom News on the neurotoxicity of fluoride. Fluoride is a potent neurotoxin and this has been known for some time; at least since the early 1940s, well before the fluoridation experiment with Grand Rapids.

Dr Gerard Judd, PhD (chemistry), [ emeritus Manhatten project] found that fluoride can inactivate 62 enzyme systems. As a naturopath, nutritionist and master herbalist, I cannot endorse a substance that has known detrimental effects.

Geoffrey Smith stated, "Recent studies suggest that fluoride may be genotoxic." (p 79, Smith) And added, "There is now a substantial body of evidence suggesting that fluoride is mutagenic." (p 93, Smith) Gibson also noted, "Fluoride is one of the most toxic inorganic chemicals in the Earth's crust, ... However, with increasing experience, doubts about both safety and efficacy have arisen." (p 111, Gibson)

And he added, "A possible link between fluoridation of public water supplies and an increase in the cancer death rate has been debated for over 20 years and there is now no doubt that fluoride can cause genetic damage." (p 111, Gibson)

Gibson noted, "Inhibitory effects of fluoride on different enzyme systems have been demonstrated." (p 111, Gibson) And, "A section of the population may therefore be at risk of compromised immune system function from water fluoridation schemes." (p 112, Gibson)

Get the drift; fluoride is not everything it is cracked up to be. Mutagenic, enzyme inhibition, genetic damage, increased cancer rates, genotoxic and controversial, all describe fluoride.

Tsutsui et al noted, a significant increase in chromosome aberrations at the chromatid level, sister chromatid exchanges, and unscheduled DNA synthesis was induced by NaF in a dose- and timedependent manner.

These results indicate that NaF is genotoxic and capable of inducing neoplastic transformation of Syrian hamster embryo cells in culture." (p 938, Tsutsui et al) There, you can see the controversy for yourself. Fluoride is toxic, fluoride is non-toxic; fluoride causes cancer, fluoride doesn't cause cancer. Who do we believe?

The fluoride controversy comes down to

... Who Do We Really Believe?

Here's two articles on mutations caused by fluoride:

    Sodium Fluoride-induced Morphological and Neoplastic Transformation Chromosome Aberrations, Sister Chromatid Exchanges, and Unscheduled DNA Synthesis in Cultured Syrian Hamster Embryo Cells, Takeki Tsutsui, Nobuko Suzuki and Manabu Ohmori, Can Res, 44:938-941, 1984 (March) 

    Sodium Fluoride-induced Chromosome Aberrations in Different Stages of the Cell Cycle: A Proposed Mechanism, Marilyn J Aardema, et al, Mutation Research, 223:191-203, 1989 

The titles say it all.

Therefore, because of this controversy my feelings on this matter is that is should be up to the patient. They need both sides of the story to make an "intelligent" decision. I only mean to give them the other side. References are cited for your use and reading enjoyment.

The EPA found that at 2 ppm salmon were sterile, yet at 1 ppm it is placed in our water supply. [Dr Richard Foulkes] Fluoride only helps [if it helps] children up to age 12. Yet, everybody is "forced" to drink it. Oscar Ewing, who pushed fluoride in the legislature, told the senators not to drink it.

The last thing I would say it that by endorsing fluoride you totally eliminate the real prevention of tooth decay ... good sound nutrition. Tooth-brushing [important as it is] does not stop tooth decay.

Fluoride [a toxic] does not stop rampant tooth decay. [Fluoride only hardens to outer surface of the enamel and may prevent calcium from being deposited when a tooth is re-mineralized.] Nutrition stops tooth decay. I have developed a nutritional supportive program which will totally stop tooth decay in less than two weeks.

I have watched many children go from all 20 carious deciduous teeth, to 20 ebernated [hardened] teeth, which are non-painful and hard as rock. I have never seen fluoride do this [after 21 years of dentistry] and fluoride is not even a part of my caries prevention program.

Ted H Spence, DDS, ND, PhD/DSc,MH"


----------



## chops_a_must (9 December 2007)

I'm still not convinced either way.

But in my case, as a notorious teeth grinder who has cracked 2 teeth in my sleep, I'm obviously glad to have fluorided water.


----------



## karmatik (9 December 2007)

Whiskers said:


> The thing that has now got me a bit worried is that fluoride is one of those elements that accumulate in the body. That alone is enough to set off alarm bells for me and err on the side of caution by not consuming the stuff for the time being.
> 
> 
> Geeez, I'm even starting to have second thoughts about using toothpaste now.




well said Whiskers. flouride accumulates in the body i.e. the residual remains and builds over time. this is scientific fact.

I dont know what is wrong with you people that think flouride addition to water is a good thing. bad teeth is a result of bad dental hygeine and acidic foods.

where's the mystery in this??


----------



## Yeti (9 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I'm still not convinced either way.
> 
> But in my case, as a notorious teeth grinder who has cracked 2 teeth in my sleep, I'm obviously glad to have fluorided water.




Chops, you say you're not convinced either way, but... you are "obviously glad to have fluoridated water" because you have two cracked teeth. Unless I am missing something that does not compute.


----------



## chops_a_must (9 December 2007)

Yeti said:


> Chops, you say you're not convinced either way, but... you are "obviously glad to have fluoridated water" because you have two cracked teeth. Unless I am missing something that does not compute.



I don't think it is inconsistent. I am not too precious to think that my personal benefit is outweighed by the potential negative consequences to society as a whole. My benefit is really insignificant in the scheme of things.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I'm still not convinced either way.
> 
> But in my case, as a notorious teeth grinder who has cracked 2 teeth in my sleep, I'm obviously glad to have fluorided water.



I bet in your deep subconscious that you're really p1ssed off that the water's flouridated, and that's why you grind your teeth.    

My brother gave his kids fluoride even before it was used in the water supply - they now have brilliant teeth. - not sure if they have nightmares or whatever else the bad effects are.   PS I'm personally ecstatic my kids had fluoride . 

My dad was a dentist in Qld way back - very common for people to have all teeth pulled out in those days - and relatively young eg 50 and 60 yearold.   True story - one old farmer came in to his surgery, sat down , and said " pull em all out , I'm sick of em / what'e left of em".   So after that dad asked when would he like to be fitted for dentures ... the farmer replied " naaah - won't need em , sick of em"..  dad tried to convince him but to no avail, and the farmer walked out.

After a few weeks he was back, and slightly humbled, gummed out "ok I'll have those dentures after all"   - dad replied "so you couldn't eat as well as you thought with those gums" -    "ah nooo", said the farmer staring at him... "nothing like that!!  see, I find when I try to whistle, the bludy cows can't hear me."


----------



## sam76 (9 December 2007)

on "Whats good for you" after the ad break (now) they are analysing flouride benefits and fears.

Channel 9 I think


----------



## sam76 (9 December 2007)

sam76 said:


> on "Whats good for you" after the ad break (now) they are analysing flouride benefits and fears.
> 
> Channel 9 I think




From the website;

Does fluoride do more harm than good?


Last year, we ran a story on the best kind of water to drink ”” bottled, filtered, or tap ”” and boy, didn't that cause a stir.
The reason? A little thing called fluoride.

A key assumption we made was that adding fluoride to the water supply was a good thing, but quite a lot of angry letter writers told us they knew different. You see there are a lot of people out there who believe fluoridated water is doing the Australian public more harm than good.

Our reporter Michael Slater is going to take a closer look at the great fluoride debate.

Like any debate there are two sides.

For fluoride fan, Professor Ian Meyers of the Queensland School of Dentistry, the argument is simple ”” fluoride cuts cavities.

On the other side of the coin is Mark Diesendorf, a professor at the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales. He says there's no real hard evidence that fluoride reduces tooth decay.

"There have been studies that have shown no benefits at all from fluoride particularly on permanent teeth," he says.

Before we go on with this argument we should find out:

What is fluoride? It's a naturally occurring mineral found in water and some foods.

How's it supposed to work? It strengthens the enamel or surface of the tooth making it more resistant to the acid that causes cavities.

How does it get into our water? At water treatment works, like the one where Colin Nicholson is the Treatment Operations Manager. At this plant, water is taken from the nearby Hawkesbury River. After being cleaned with chemicals and filtered, the fluoride is added from this storage tank.

The key issue is how much is added, because fluoride is a poison.

Michael: "Now Colin, this is the fluoride … This is not looking too healthy or safe to me, with a [warning] sign like that."

Colin: "Yeah, but it's a concentrated acid form … by the time we add it at one milligram per litre it's a very minuscule amount and it's quite safe."

To make sure we are getting that tiny amount, Michael took a sample from the treatment plant and another from his own tap for independent testing.

So how were those fluoride levels? We found that both the tap water and the treatment plant water contained 0.9 parts per million of fluoride ions ”” so they're both exactly the same and it's just what Colin promised at the treatment plant.

Below 0.5 and both sides of the argument agree, fluoride has little effect on our teeth.

But does that mean it's good for us? The anti-fluoride camp says no one has investigated the long-term effects.

"The concern about fluoridated water is long term. People aren't going to drop dead from drinking a glass of fluoridated water, but they could have bone disease and other diseases for ingesting it for years and decades, says Professor Diesendorf."

What Professor Diesendorf is talking about is fluorosis, which can affect the entire body. It damages the bone structure causing pain and brittle bones that fracture more easily. It also damages the surface of teeth leading, ironically, to cavities. 

But if you ask the pro-fluoride camp, they'll tell you it's practically impossible to overdose on fluoride. 

Professor Meyers: "Dental and skeletal fluorosis will only occur where there's an excess of fluoride. There's no evidence of skeletal fluorosis in any communities that have artificial water fluoridation."

But a recent study by Harvard University in the United States, found a link between bone cancer ”” or osteosarcoma ”” and fluoridated water in boys only.

Professor Diesendorf: "If this evidence was seen for any pharmaceutical drug it would be immediately taken off the market, but fluoride is the protected pollutant I'm afraid."

Professor Meyers, on the other hand, says,"In the UK the York review looked at over 200 studies, which compared fluoridated communities and cancers ”” osteosarcomas ”” and found no relationship at all."

The fact is both sides of the argument can produce studies to support their view ”” there's no way of telling what's right. We also don't seem to have much choice because every capital city in Australia except Brisbane has fluoride added to the water supply and pouring out of your tap whether you like it or not.

Michael: "So should you stop drinking fluoridated water? Well I've been drinking it all my life and so far, so good … our public health experts believe the greater good is served by adding fluoride to the water supply."

But if you are concerned about fluoride, here are some alternatives:


Use water from rain tanks 
Use a specialised purifier or reverse osmosis system to remove it from your personal supply 
Buy specially marked "fluoride-free" bottled water.
The choice is yours.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Could you please explain just what you have decided is "crackpot argument".
> 
> Also, how exactly have you deduced that those against fluoridated water are the same people who are against vaccinations such as Whooping Cough and Measles?
> 
> ...




A *crackpot* argument is one that states for instance -(both used in this thread) -that fluoride is used as a form of *mind control* and our government is doing it because the *Nazis* proved it worked so well or;
that the government is putting it into the water as it is a *byproduct *of a chemical process because they have to have some way of getting rid of it and puting it into our water supply is the way to do it.  I think they are pretty clearly crackpot arguments.


I am not pro or anti fluoride, I just wanted to hear some sensible (ie not crackpot) argument. We are now getting some decent argument, particuarly from ajoz, 2020hindsight and sam76. 

I decided to look up the Queensland Government site to see why they say they are fluoridating the water. Refer following.

http://www.fluoridationqld.com/fluoride_benefits.htm

Julia, with your teeth problem, that symptom (mottling of teeth) is described on the site. Very interesting and I sympathise with your plight. Surely if the government realise that that can happen to some people then you have a case to get them to pay to filter your water!!


----------



## Julia (9 December 2007)

Knobby22 said:


> Julia, with your teeth problem, that symptom (mottling of teeth) is described on the site. Very interesting and I sympathise with your plight. Surely if the government realise that that can happen to some people then you have a case to get them to pay to filter your water!!



Knobby, my teeth were not even "mottled".  They were solidly rotten looking brown, and that was after just one month.  What might the fluoride have been doing to my bones?  The teeth were just something that was easy to see!
Get the government to pay for filtering my water?  You must be joking!
Given the response I have received so far in terms of even having my objection noted, I'd be waiting until hell freezes over.

Amongst all this discussion, we are losing sight of the basic point:
that those who believe fluoride will be good for them are easily able to add it via tablets to their water, whereas those of us who know or believe it is harmful to us are simply going to have our basic right of a supply of drinking water removed from us.

I notice none of the pro-fluoride or even the sitting on the fence people have commented on my suggestion that adding fluoride to drinking water is no different in principle to adding any other antidote to any other common problem.
i.e. if you have poor dental hygiene, OK don't worry about taking responsibility for improving that and/or eating nutritious food rather than lots of sugar and acid:  Big Brother will just add a poison to our water to help you continue to eat rubbish by providing a coating over your teeth.  Doesn't matter that this measure will adversely affect a significant portion of the population.

We would not, of course, dare to suggest that the removal of the Dental Care scheme has anything to do with the increased rate of tooth decay.
Every week I see people whose teeth are rotting simply because they have been unable to access basic dental care.

Could someone - anyone who is pro-fluoride - please offer your response to my suggestion that, given we have an epidemic of depression, it would make sense to add anti depressants to the water supply.  

Or perhaps we are more concerned about hypertension.  So then we could add antihypertensive drugs to the water supply to protect those people who refuse to modify their diet and lifestyle sufficiently to lower their blood pressure.  And in so doing, we drop the blood pressure of people who don't require this medication to a dangerously low level.

I just can't see how either of these examples (and I could think of more)
are any different  from adding fluoride to the water.  It would be an entirely different matter if fluoride was unavailable from any other source.


----------



## wayneL (9 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Knobby, my teeth were not even "mottled".  They were solidly rotten looking brown, and that was after just one month.  What might the fluoride have been doing to my bones?  The teeth were just something that was easy to see!
> Get the government to pay for filtering my water?  You must be joking!
> Given the response I have received so far in terms of even having my objection noted, I'd be waiting until hell freezes over.
> 
> ...



The "crackpot arguments" are pretty hard to believe, but with gu'mints insistence as this mass medicating, it does make one wonder.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Amongst all this discussion, we are losing sight of the basic point:
> that those who believe fluoride will be good for them are easily able to add it via tablets to their water, whereas those of us who know or believe it is harmful to us are simply going to have our basic right of a supply of drinking water removed from us.
> 
> I notice none of the pro-fluoride or even the sitting on the fence people have commented on my suggestion that adding fluoride to drinking water is no different in principle to adding any other antidote to any other common problem.



Well I'd have to agree with you Julia 

I guess "they" could redeem themselves if they paid for it to be removed where people so require  (and that would seem reasonable,  you're right)

Personally I would add the tablets (as my brother did prior to it being "compulsory" in NSW) - but I hear you 

Take em to court - do an "Erin Brockovich" 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich


----------



## disarray (10 December 2007)

Julia said:


> I notice none of the pro-fluoride or even the sitting on the fence people have commented on my suggestion that adding fluoride to drinking water is no different in principle to adding any other antidote to any other common problem.
> 
> Could someone - anyone who is pro-fluoride - please offer your response to my suggestion that, given we have an epidemic of depression, it would make sense to add anti depressants to the water supply.




i'm neither pro nor anti fluoride because the decision is moot for sydneysiders, but this will become a growing concern as time goes on.

we put antibiotics and hormones into our meat supply, fortify juices with folate and vitamins, pasteurise our milk and we have barely started with the genetic engineering of our livestock and crops. government health authorities do have a job to try and raise the standard of health for everyone and adding extras to our necessities is the easiest way to reach the largest number of people.

the use of antibiotics and hormones especially is a cause of concern to me.


----------



## Kimosabi (10 December 2007)

disarray said:


> i'm neither pro nor anti fluoride because the decision is moot for sydneysiders, but this will become a growing concern as time goes on.
> 
> we put antibiotics and hormones into our meat supply, fortify juices with folate and vitamins, pasteurise our milk and we have barely started with the genetic engineering of our livestock and crops. government health authorities do have a job to try and raise the standard of health for everyone and adding extras to our necessities is the easiest way to reach the largest number of people.
> 
> the use of antibiotics and hormones especially is a cause of concern to me.



There ain't no money for the pharmacutical companies, if we have a healthy population.

The problem with most peoples health is that they are nutritionally deficient.

Buy Organic, it's the best thing you will ever do...

I started blending organic fruit/veges each morning and added spirulina, chlorella, brewers yeast, flax seed, purple dulse sea weed and raw honey.

I Lost 10 kg's(went from 100 to 90kg's) in 2 months without dieting or exercising and felt like I was 5 years younger...


----------



## wayneL (10 December 2007)

disarray said:


> the use of antibiotics and hormones especially is a cause of concern to me.



Ditto


Kimosabi said:


> Buy Organic, it's the best thing you will ever do...
> 
> I started blending organic fruit/veges each morning and added spirulina, chlorella, brewers yeast, flax seed, purple dulse sea weed and raw honey.
> 
> I Lost 10 kg's(went from 100 to 90kg's) in 2 months without dieting or exercising and felt like I was 5 years younger...



...and ditto.

Though exercise is a definite plus to the mix.

In addition to a diet similar to the above, I've started doing something REALLY strenuous (at last after 5 years my body has healed enough) and I am feeling ####ing dangerous again... and the ladies are starting to look back. :

(NB Window shopping only )


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (10 December 2007)

i wouldn't mind giving some organic foods a go i try to eat more vegies etc now but i look at woolies vegies and wonder if they are really that good. I would mainly be after trying to detox the system and cleanse the skin and so does the missues.

Any one got any good recipes for organic meals, does this wonder drink you make for breakky just involve throwing them in a blender and then drinkin?

I've tried organic meat too thought it tastes better, and drink more water during the day and some veggie juice. 

I want to do a detox thing but i can't handle eating only veggies for two weeks and eating 20 different pills a day.


----------



## Kimosabi (10 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> Ditto
> 
> ...and ditto.
> 
> ...




Look up Dr Richard Schulze and Dr Christopher on Google Video, Youtube, etc.

I've watched about 50 hours of their videos and it will blow you away with what these guys can do with natural healing.  They can cure all diseases except for old age.

Dr Christopher taught Dr Schulze.

For treating incurable diseases Dr Schulze uses a combination of Juicing, Nutritional Supplements like Spirulina, Chlorella etc, Herbs, Hydrotherapy, Body work, Cleanses, etc and the best thing is he tells/shows you how to make all the herbal formula's etc.

The key is that everything has to be Organic or Wild Picked, and the most interesting thing though, is that Dr Schulze's says the most powerful of all the treatments was hydrotherapy, ie Hot/Cold Showers because this really get the blood flowing through the body, combine this with super nutrition and your body starts fixing itself.

All the naysayers can keep doing what their doing and continue to get butchered by the medical profession but the tecniques these guys use can produce healing miracles...


----------



## Julia (10 December 2007)

Occasional fasting is good.   

For pain, I've recently found acupuncture (traditional Chinese Medicine doctor) to be amazing.  Nine months of pain was just exacerbated by physios and a Bowen therapist.  Two sessions with a funny little Chinese lady and I have almost no pain.


----------



## Bowey (10 December 2007)

*Re: Fluoride - a killer chemical?*

A while ago I did a lot of research on the effects of flouride, which needs to be separated into (1) Hydra-Silica Flouride (in treated water) and (2) Calcium Flouride (in toothpaste) and (a) affect on teeth and (b) affect on internal organs and bones. Excuse me if the names are wrong, but can't quite remember the exact  names at the moment.

The first chemical (Silica Flouride) is a toxic byproduct of certain heavy industries (including mining) and is dumped into the water supplies of major towns by well-meaning government bodies who think they are doing you a favour. This is almost free to the councils and governments and I think industry pay THEM for the privilege of dumping it into our drinking supplies. This particular variant of flouride has not been shown to help teeth at all. Mostly used by industrialised countries whose factories/smelters product the stuff and have nowehere else to safely dump them. Anyhow, read the PDF file by the ex-member of the ACT Assembly committee, and see what he says about the suppression of adverse reports of flouride use - scary!

The second chemical (2) Calcium Flouride is the one that is recommended for direct dental use on the teeth - not drinking and ingesting into the body. The benefits of this are not really certain either, but those who want to use it are advised to brush with flouride toothpaste (and rinse well - because it can poison small children if they swallow a pea sized amount!) or put flouride tablets in their water. When you think of flouridated water coming from your tap you would assume they put this "safer" calcium flouride in it, but they don't, because it's just too expensive to buy, instead they put the industrial waste Silica Flouride in the drinking water.

When I saw all this, my first reaction was "why" and "is this for real", so I sent some email to local water bodies and found they were actually treating our water with the industrial waste "Silica Flouride", not the Calcium Flouride stuff. 

It all stems from some dud research studies in the 70's which showed that Calcium Flouride prevented decay etc, and so the myth grew and dentist jumped on board and govt's jumped on board to flouridate and now its almost sacrilige to question those original findings. However good or bad those studies were, they didn't intend for us to (a) "ingest" the flouride and (b) use industrial variants of flouride....there are many links between excessive flouride and Mottled Teeth in children (brown/white patches) and Osteoperosis, heardening of arteries etc.

Most of Third World countries don't have flouridation, many countries in Europe don't have flouridation, they say there is no proven benefit. If you don't wan't decay in your teeth, stop eating sugar and brush regularly.

If you want to do the research yourself, contact the state or federal Dept of Health or your local water authority and ask for the "independant" (not sponsored by Colgate or Oral-B) studies that they used to show flouride in your water is beneficial to you - they won't have any!

Some people would just believe what they have always believed and can't bring themselves to look at the facts, so I do not apologise for my opinions above. Also, I filter my water but most carbon type filters will only remove half the flouride in tap water, so you must buy a Reverse Osmosis machine or an Ioniser to completely remove flouride.

Also remember that there are liability issues here by authorities suddenly admitting that flouride is not as good for you as they thought, so they will simply not admit this.

Enough ranting, hope you find it useful and DYOR (as they like to say on this forum).


----------



## Kimosabi (10 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Occasional fasting is good.
> 
> For pain, I've recently found acupuncture (traditional Chinese Medicine doctor) to be amazing. Nine months of pain was just exacerbated by physios and a Bowen therapist. Two sessions with a funny little Chinese lady and I have almost no pain.




Try Hot/Cold Showers.  Start with Hot, then turn the hot off for a Minute and then turn the Hot back on, repeating Seven Times.  If possible, try going bit hotter after the first cold.

Finish with Hot if you want to sleep after the shower or finish with cold if you want to go to work etc.

The purpose of this is to get the blood flowing.  The hot brings the blood to the surface and the cold pushes your blood into the core.  This stimulates your lymphatic system as well.

I'd also recommend getting a shower filter to get rid of the chlorine out the water as well, because chlorine is even worse for you than flouride...

More info on Dr Schulze and Hydrothery here ==> http://members.tripod.com/healingtools/thn9.html


----------



## Yezzy (10 December 2007)

Had fluoride in the water in Townsville for years, no dramas up here. Good to see the rest of the state catch up to reality.


----------



## Bowey (10 December 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> I'd also recommend getting a shower filter to get rid of the chlorine out the water as well, because chlorine is even worse for you than flouride...
> 
> More info on Dr Schulze and Hydrothery here ==> http://members.tripod.com/healingtools/thn9.html




Kimosabi, I totally agree, I invested in a chlorine shower filter and immediately noticed the difference - less odour in the bathroom, skin not as dry and feeling more energised overall. Seems extreme I know, but I didn't notice how bad I felt showeing with chlorinated water until I installed this filter - honest to god. I can't recommend this enough.


----------



## sails (10 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Occasional fasting is good.
> 
> For pain, I've recently found acupuncture (traditional Chinese Medicine doctor) to be amazing.  Nine months of pain was just exacerbated by physios and a Bowen therapist.  Two sessions with a funny little Chinese lady and I have almost no pain.




So glad you've found something that works - great news


----------



## disarray (10 December 2007)

melbourne water has a decent write-up of their flurodisation program at their website

from the site ...



> Fluoride in drinking water is supported by the World Health Organization, the Australian Dental Association, the Australian Medical Association, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Australian College of General Practitioners and The Public Health Association of Australia Inc.
> 
> Fluoridation is recognised as a safe and effective public health measure demonstrated to improve the dental health of the community.






> If you would like to know more about fluoride and health, please contact the Department of Human Services on 9616 8467 (Dental Health Unit) or 9637 4000 (Environmental Health Unit), or visit www.dhs.vic.gov.au  (Department of Human Services), www.adavb.com.au  (Australian Dental Association) or www.health.gov.au/nhmrc  (National Health and Medical Research Council).




advice on how to remove fluoride from drinking water

Wiki entry on water fluoride controversy


----------



## chops_a_must (10 December 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> The purpose of this is to get the blood flowing.  The hot brings the blood to the surface and the cold pushes your blood into the core.  This stimulates your lymphatic system as well.



If you have a lymphatic or persistent swelling problem, the hot/cold reversal treatment is perhaps the worst thing you can do for it. In fact, it can be downright dangerous.

Please don't give out medical advice over the net if you aren't in the least bit qualified.


----------



## Yeti (10 December 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> People who do this have missing teeth regrow, enamel get thicker, fillings fall out and the tooth regrows, etc, etc.




Kimosabi, I am interested in researching this further. It has for a long time been my belief that the fact that we do not regrow our teeth should NOT be considered normal. Do you have any first-hand experience and/or can you refer me to further information on that, other than what I might easily find myself on the net, thanks.


----------



## Yeti (10 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Amongst all this discussion, we are losing sight of the basic point:
> that those who believe fluoride will be good for them are easily able to add it via tablets to their water, whereas those of us who know or believe it is harmful to us are simply going to have our basic right of a supply of drinking water removed from us.




Excellent point No.1



> I notice none of the pro-fluoride or even the sitting on the fence people have commented on my suggestion that adding fluoride to drinking water is no different in principle to adding any other antidote to any other common problem.




Excellent point No.2



> i.e. if you have poor dental hygiene, OK don't worry about taking responsibility for improving that and/or eating nutritious food rather than lots of sugar and acid:  Big Brother will just add a poison to our water to help you continue to eat rubbish by providing a coating over your teeth.  Doesn't matter that this measure will adversely affect a significant portion of the population.




Excellent point No.3



> We would not, of course, dare to suggest that the removal of the Dental Care scheme has anything to do with the increased rate of tooth decay.
> Every week I see people whose teeth are rotting simply because they have been unable to access basic dental care.




Excellent point No.4



> Could someone - anyone who is pro-fluoride - please offer your response to my suggestion that, given we have an epidemic of depression, it would make sense to add anti depressants to the water supply.
> 
> Or perhaps we are more concerned about hypertension.  So then we could add antihypertensive drugs to the water supply to protect those people who refuse to modify their diet and lifestyle sufficiently to lower their blood pressure.  And in so doing, we drop the blood pressure of people who don't require this medication to a dangerously low level.




Really, really excellent points No.5 and 6 which I will happily borrow from now on!



> I just can't see how either of these examples (and I could think of more)
> are any different  from adding fluoride to the water.  It would be an entirely different matter if fluoride was unavailable from any other source.




But still no justification to override the population's free choice, and force it upon them in a way that makes it impossible to avoid.

Thanks for all your posts on this subject Julia, with your personal experience with Fluoride, you speak with more authority than most.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2007)

Julia said:


> I've recently found acupuncture (traditional Chinese Medicine doctor) to be amazing.



whatever else you say about acupuncture, you can't say it's pointless  (old joke sorry)


----------



## AndrewM123 (10 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> whatever else you say about acupuncture, you can't say it's pointless  (old joke sorry)




Funny tho,,,,,


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2007)

I find acupuncture pins double pretty well as toothpicks 

I tell you one thing... restaurants in HK used to have toothpicks at the table - really encouraged people to use them  ... sometimes even handed out mint flavoured triangular toothpicks ... nice way to finish a meal....

It seems logical to me that that custom is a great help in tooth care.. 

If I'm not mistaken, 30% or 50% or 70% (or whatever- i.e."a lot" ) of the chemical attack to teeth occurs within the first hour or two after you eat - so the toothpick straight after a meal is "striking when the iron is hot", and arguably better that waiting for 4 hours to brush your teeth before retiring etc .   

(PS 75.48% of all statistics are made up on the spot )


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 December 2007)

disarray said:


> i'm neither pro nor anti fluoride because the decision is moot for sydneysiders, but this will become a growing concern as time goes on.
> 
> we put antibiotics and hormones into our meat supply, fortify juices with folate and vitamins, pasteurise our milk and we have barely started with the genetic engineering of our livestock and crops. government health authorities do have a job to try and raise the standard of health for everyone and adding extras to our necessities is the easiest way to reach the largest number of people.
> 
> the use of antibiotics and hormones especially is a cause of concern to me.



Hydrogenation of cooking oil was "safe" when first introduced. So was asbestos, smoking and leaded petrol.

There's no way of knowing without long term studies whether or not any of the food additives / processes are safe.


----------



## Julia (10 December 2007)

Chops, re your criticism of Kimosabi, I think that's a bit unfair.  Kimosabi's recommendation was originally that quoting a Dr Schulze on hydrotherapy.  And as I understood kimosabi's  comments they were in reply to my having mentioned that I'd found acupuncture really helpful for pain.  I took his recommendation to mean that hot/cold water in the shower provided symptomatic relief from pain.
I agree with that suggestion and frankly found that to stand in the shower for several minutes alternating the hot and cold was of significantly greater benefit than all the physio and other therapists put together.

Had he/she recommended the hot/cold treatment in response to my complaining about swelling, then yes, you would have a point.  But as it was in response to pain, I support what was said.

Bowey - thanks for a great post.  Really interesting information.  Makes me more irate than ever!

Yeti:  glad to know someone agrees with me on the general principles outlined.  Please share the thoughts with anyone you think will listen.


----------



## chops_a_must (10 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Chops, re your criticism of Kimosabi, I think that's a bit unfair.  Kimosabi's recommendation was originally that quoting a Dr Schulze on hydrotherapy.  And as I understood kimosabi's  comments they were in reply to my having mentioned that I'd found acupuncture really helpful for pain.  I took his recommendation to mean that hot/cold water in the shower provided symptomatic relief from pain.
> I agree with that suggestion and frankly found that to stand in the shower for several minutes alternating the hot and cold was of significantly greater benefit than all the physio and other therapists put together.
> 
> Had he/she recommended the hot/cold treatment in response to my complaining about swelling, then yes, you would have a point.  But as it was in response to pain, I support what was said.




My response wasn't in regard to the pain argument, but the lymphatic system stimulation comment. Yes, in most cases of straight up pain, hot and cold reversal treatment is good. But a blanket statement saying it will stimulate the lymphatic system is incorrect. In a lot of cases it will be hurrendously bad for it. That kind of treatment, without the help of a muscle pump, will leave the lymph in the extremities for instance, which is exactly where you don't want it hanging around. It's why sports people have ice baths only, and then delay any heat contact.


----------



## Kimosabi (11 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Chops, re your criticism of Kimosabi, I think that's a bit unfair. Kimosabi's recommendation was originally that quoting a Dr Schulze on hydrotherapy. And as I understood kimosabi's comments they were in reply to my having mentioned that I'd found acupuncture really helpful for pain. I took his recommendation to mean that hot/cold water in the shower provided symptomatic relief from pain.
> I agree with that suggestion and frankly found that to stand in the shower for several minutes alternating the hot and cold was of significantly greater benefit than all the physio and other therapists put together.
> 
> Had he/she recommended the hot/cold treatment in response to my complaining about swelling, then yes, you would have a point. But as it was in response to pain, I support what was said.
> ...



Plus after a hot/cold shower you feel all tingly and alive afterwards...

Here you go Julia, this a full list of Schulze's various Treatments ==> http://members.tripod.com/healingtools/DS_pages.html

If you combine the the Hydrotherapy with Nutritional and/or Herbal Supplements you may even experience a Healing Miracle.

Dr Schulze actually recommends Dry Skin Brushing followed by a single hot/cold shower cycle for proper Lymphatic Stimulation to help your Lymphatic System Clean itself of Toxins that collect in the Lymphatiuc System...

http://members.tripod.com/healingtools/skinbrush.html

I do recommend that everyone does their own research, and watch all of the Dr Schulze and Dr Christopher video's etc. before trying any of this stuff.

I'm sorry Chops, considering just about all of us are now expected to get cancer in this wonderfully advanced modern world of ours, the medical/pharmaceutical/mass market food industry's have no credibility.


----------



## BraceFace (11 December 2007)

Julia said:


> As Wayne has said, the issue is not dental health.  If people want to use fluoride to protect their teeth they can easily add it themselves.  It is not necessary to mass medicate the whole population so that those of us who cannot drink fluoridated water are deprived of a basic need.




Julia, you cannot add Fluorine or ionic Fluoride to your own drinking water. It is a complex chemical process that is done at the source. 
Even if you could, people wouldn't do it themselves.Just like people don't immunize themselves against infectious diseases.

It IS a dental public health issue, and this is precisely the reason why it is added to scheme water in the first place. Take a look at Queensland's average DMFT (Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth) numbers for children compared with any of the other fluoridated states and immediately you will see what I'm talking about. (I don't have the numbers on hand). The government has to spend millions of $$ on public dental health schemes and even in the last election, extra funding for dental health was a core promise from both parties. Fluoridating the water supply literally saves millions of our tax dollars being spent on dental disease that could have been prevented in the first place.

The other point people (yourself included) miss, is that Fluoride not only acts topically but also systemically in growing children. IE Using a fluorided toothpaste or mouthwash isn't much use to an infant whose permanent teeth are unerupted and calcifying within the jaws. This is where the fluoride really comes into significance - kids and children. The fluoride is taken into the matrix of the developing teeth before they erupt, strengthening then and improving their resistance to decay once they have erupted.

Sure the antifluoridationists (some have already posted) will tell you that Flouride is toxic and the nazi's used it etc blah blah blah. Well guess what,  Oxygen is also toxic in high enough concentrations. 1 ppm ionic Fluoride in the water is NOT TOXIC. If it were, we'd all be dead.
These extremists will also probably direct you to propaganda websites that produce no creditable scientific research to back their claims. Do a Medline search and you will find literally thousands of reputable scientific, peer-reiewed publications in international medical and dental journals that support the use of Fluoride as one the the most successful population public health schemes of the 20th century.

You can believe the non-scientific rhetoric from minority groups or you can beleive the science. 

Isn't it also interesting to consider that dentists, as a group, are the most vocal advocates of fluoridating the water and yet they stand to lose the most as a result of it. Fluoride in the water = less cavities= less work for dentists. They are effectively putting themselves out of business by pushing this agenda. Quite altruistic really.

If for whatever medical reason you cannot drink fluoridated water you arein the extreme minority. There's plently of reverse osmosis water filtration systems that you can install but in the mean time the rest of us can keep our pearly whites intact for life.

A nice little summary of this issue can be found at
http://www.ncahs.nsw.gov.au/news/fullstory.php?storyid=55&siteid=142


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2007)

BraceFace said:


> Take a look at Queensland's average DMFT (Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth) numbers




THanks for the article Braveface - have to read it in detail later.

I think Julia is saying if she could just be directed to the people who are ignoring her pleas, then there'd be a few more of those DMFT's you mentioned  - maybe the "dunno missing after the fight teeth".  

You'd think she'd be entitled to govt assistance to remove the flouride at her home yes?  
(Although I'd neved thought about it before she mentioned it)


----------



## chops_a_must (11 December 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> If you combine the the Hydrotherapy with Nutritional and/or Herbal Supplements you may even experience a Healing Miracle.
> 
> Dr Schulze actually recommends Dry Skin Brushing followed by a single hot/cold shower cycle for proper Lymphatic Stimulation to help your Lymphatic System Clean itself of Toxins that collect in the Lymphatiuc System...
> 
> ...



We all have cancer. You do, I do, everyone on this forum has cancer. It is a natural part of life. To say you can "cure" cancer is complete and utter bollocks. We would die without cancer.

I would also never give credibility to someone who can't get incredibly basic medical terminology correct. I've never heard of a gland getting rid of pathogens for instance. This guy actually needs a lesson on some really fundamental anatomy.


----------



## ajoz (11 December 2007)

BraceFace said:


> A nice little summary of this issue can be found at
> http://www.ncahs.nsw.gov.au/news/fullstory.php?storyid=55&siteid=142
> 
> "Worldwide, around 360 million people drink water containing fluoride, including 40 million who benefit from naturally fluoridated supplies. Major cities using f luoridated water include Sydney and Melbourne, Los Angeles , New York and Chicago. Indeed, 47 of the USA’s 50 largest cities are now fluoridated.




Here are some major countries that don't use fluoridated water and their reasons.


*Statements from European Health, Water, & Environment Authorities on Water Fluoridation*


UPDATES:

May 2007: A new study of European public opinion on water fluoridation, published in the journal Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology, reports that the "vast majority of people opposed water fluoridation." According to the study, Europeans opposed fluoridation for the following reasons:

    "Many felt dental health was an issue to be dealt with at the level of the individual, rather than a solution to be imposed en masse. While people accepted that some children were not encouraged to brush their teeth, they proposed other solutions to addressing these needs rather than having a solution of unproved safety imposed on them by public health authorities whom they did not fully trust. They did not see why they should accept potential side effects in order that a minority may benefit. In particular, water was something that should be kept as pure as possible, even though it was recognized that it already contains many additives." (See study summary)

November 2004: After months of consulation, Scotland - which is currently unfluoridated - rejected plans to add fluoride to the nation's water. For more information, click here

April 9, 2003: The City Parliament of Basel, Switzerland voted 73 to 23 to stop Basel's 41 year water fluoridation program. Basel was the only city in Switzerland to fluoridate its water, and the only city in continental western Europe, outside of a few areas in Spain. To learn more about Basel's decision, click here.

For more news articles discussing the current fluoridation controversies in England, Scotland, and Ireland, click here

*Germany:*

"Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication." (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/germany.jpeg

*France:*

"Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l'Environment, August 25, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/france.jpeg

*Belgium:*

"This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services." (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-belgium.htm

*Luxembourg:*

"Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs." (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L'Environment, May 3, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/luxembourg.jpeg

*Sweden:*

"Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown." (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket -- National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm

(See statement by Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the Nobel Laureate in Medicine, who helped lead the campaign to prevent fluoridation in Sweden in the late 1970s.)

*Denmark:*

"We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated." (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999). www.fluoridation.com/c-denmark.htm

(To read the Danish Ministry of the Environment's reasons for banning fluoridation, click here)

*Norway:*

"In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated." (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-norway.htm

*Netherlands:*

"From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn." (Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-netherlands.htm

*Finland:*

"We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-finland.htm

"Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual's right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of "force-feeding" was also mentioned.

Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water." (Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.) www.fluoridealert.org/finland.jpeg

*Northern Ireland:*

"The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland." (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/Northern-Ireland.jpeg

*Austria:*

"Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria." (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-austria.htm

*Czech Republic:*

"Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered:

    * uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)
    * unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)
    * unethical ("forced medication")
    * toxicologically and phyiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor." (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/czech.jpeg

*  Tooth Decay Trends: Fluoridated Vs Unfluoridated Countries
http://fluoridealert.org/health/tee...n
[url]http://fluoridealert.org/carlsson.htm
* Social Science & Medicine: Water Fluoridation in Eleven Countries (pdf file)
http://fluoridealert.org/farkas1982.pdf


----------



## Julia (11 December 2007)

BraceFace said:


> Julia, you cannot add Fluorine or ionic Fluoride to your own drinking water. It is a complex chemical process that is done at the source.



Sorry I don't believe that.  If that were the case, then why would my local Council have been handing out tablets to anyone who wanted them for many years.  The Council felt that was the most reasonable way to allow those who wanted to consume fluoride to do so, without affecting those who don't.
They have now, of course, been overridden by the State government.



> Even if you could, people wouldn't do it themselves.Just like people don't immunize themselves against infectious diseases.



Well, then, that's their bloody choice!   I don't see why the whole population should be considered in the light of the irresponsibility of some minority.
We live in such a nanny state that soon most people will have lost the capacity to make decisions for themselves!




> Sure the antifluoridationists (some have already posted) will tell you that Flouride is toxic and the nazi's used it etc blah blah blah.



By using such expressions as this, you are showing no respect for those who have opinions different from your own.  I have not - and I don't think any of the other posters who are anti fluoride - been rude in presenting our arguments.  I notice in all of your lengthy post you have chosen to make no comment on my original concern - that of disfiguring fluorosis.



> You can believe the non-scientific rhetoric from minority groups or you can beleive the science.



In my own instance, it's not a case of belief.  It's a case of the evidence of my own experience.


Why do you suggest so many countries who have fluoridated their water supply in the past have subsequently chosen to withdraw it?


----------



## disarray (11 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Well, then, that's their bloody choice!   I don't see why the whole population should be considered in the light of the irresponsibility of some minority. We live in such a nanny state that soon most people will have lost the capacity to make decisions for themselves!




equality of health is an important part of an egalitarian society. people want a safety net and a society that cares for its citizens so the tradeoff for this is things like immunisation programs and fluoride whether you want it or not.

compulsory immunisation helps eradicate diseases that have plagued us forever while saving money on costs associated with treating these diseases. the government is probably using this same logic in its push for fluoride, and it is a sound decision to make - greater good and all that.

the alternative is leaving public health up to the individual which will end up in a mess of outcomes with haves and have nots and people bitching about how come its poor kids who get polio etc. etc.


----------



## moneymajix (11 December 2007)

Ajoz provided a list of counties that don't put fluoride in their water systems. 

My initial reaction to that post was "gullible Aussies". 

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Follow the money...


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2007)

disarray said:


> equality of health is an important part of an egalitarian society. people want a safety net and a society that cares for its citizens so the tradeoff for this is things like immunisation programs and fluoride whether you want it or not.
> 
> compulsory immunisation helps eradicate diseases that have plagued us forever while saving money on costs associated with treating these diseases. the government is probably using this same logic in its push for fluoride, and it is a sound decision to make - greater good and all that.
> 
> the alternative is leaving public health up to the individual which will end up in a mess of outcomes with haves and have nots and people bitching about how come its poor kids who get polio etc. etc.



Based on the evidence I've seen in this thread, it's drawing a long bow that flouridation is for the greater good ah lah immunization. The benefits just aren't that demonstrable in an improving dental hygiene era... and some are experiencing real harm.

I suspect a profit motive somewhere.


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2007)

moneymajix said:


> Follow the money...



Snap!


----------



## BraceFace (11 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Sorry I don't believe that.  If that were the case, then why would my local Council have been handing out tablets to anyone who wanted them for many years.  The Council felt that was the most reasonable way to allow those who wanted to consume fluoride to do so, without affecting those who don't.
> 
> That's because it's the next best option to fluoridated water. It has nowhere near the efficacy. It is also dangerous because if children are going to be exposed to potentially harmful doses of Fluoride, it's going to be because they are incorrectly dosed by their parents , not the water supply.
> 
> ...




The previous poster has selectively quoted stuff from rampant Anti-Fluoridation websites to back his argument. That is his prerogative - I myself would rather listen to the public health experts. Just because certain EU countries have decided against it DOESNT make it the right thing.

In France, I can smoke in a restaurant - is that the right thing to do?

You do have a choice , get a water filter or move to Europe.
It is not a government conspiracy theory, they (and dentists) are actually trying to look after people here.


----------



## BraceFace (11 December 2007)

Sorry, have reposted, with the appropriate quote breaks.



Julia said:


> Sorry I don't believe that.  If that were the case, then why would my local Council have been handing out tablets to anyone who wanted them for many years.  The Council felt that was the most reasonable way to allow those who wanted to consume fluoride to do so, without affecting those who don't.




That's because it's the next best option to fluoridated water. It has nowhere near the efficacy. It is also dangerous because if children are going to be exposed to potentially harmful doses of Fluoride, it's going to be because they are incorrectly dosed by their parents , not the water supply.



Julia said:


> They have now, of course, been overridden by the State government.




That's because it is for the greater good of the majority



Julia said:


> Well, then, that's their bloody choice!   I don't see why the whole population should be considered in the light of the irresponsibility of some minority.
> We live in such a nanny state that soon most people will have lost the capacity to make decisions for themselves!
> 
> By using such expressions as this, you are showing no respect for those who have opinions different from your own.  I have not - and I don't think any of the other posters who are anti fluoride - been rude in presenting our arguments.  I notice in all of your lengthy post you have chosen to make no comment on my original concern - that of disfiguring fluorosis.




I have chosen not to address your previous claims about Fluorosis of your own teeth because it seems to me that your claims about the staining of your own  teeth are misguided and in no way related to fluoride.
Fluorosis is a mottling or discolouration of the enamel of the teeth that occurs due to high systemic Fluoride levels AT THE TIME THE CROWNS OF THE PERMANENT TEETH ARE DEVELOPING. IE  From 32 weeks in utero to  about 2 years of age for most teeth. It an intrinsic diclouration of the enamel, not a surface stain as your posts seem to suggest.

Unless you were exposed to high fluoride levels during that period of your life, your stains are not Fluorotic. When reading your previous posts (correct me if I'm wrong), you state you were in a Fluoridated area for one month (as an adult?).
Fluoride in the water supply does not cause extrinsic staining to the teeth either. Other minerals might.



Julia said:


> In my own instance, it's not a case of belief.  It's a case of the evidence of my own experience.




Your beliefs may be misguided by incorrect "information" given to you by your dentist at the time.

Fluorosis is a common finding these days, but for the most part it is a minor cosmetic issue. Tooth decay is a health issue. Moreover, Fluorosis is not caused by drinking fluoridated tap water. It is usually, from children/ingesting ingesting too much fluoride toothpaste in there early developmental years, being overdosed on fluoride tablets, drinking bore water when is naturally very high in fluoride and other minerals, or drinking infant formula that has been made up with tap water, thereby doubling the fluoride concentration.



Julia said:


> Why do you suggest so many countries who have fluoridated their water supply in the past have subsequently chosen to withdraw it?




The previous poster has selectively quoted stuff from rampant Anti-Fluoridation websites to back his argument. That is his prerogative - I myself would rather listen to the public health experts. Just because certain EU countries have decided against it DOESNT make it the right thing.

In France, I can smoke in a restaurant - is that the right thing to do?

You do have a choice , get a water filter or move to Europe.
It is not a government conspiracy theory, they (and dentists) are actually trying to look after people here.


----------



## Yezzy (11 December 2007)

I've read that countries in the EU put fluoride in their salt instead of their water, so if anyone wants to bang on about Europe not putting fluoride in their water you better check other potential sources for adding fluoride before you compare them.


----------



## BraceFace (11 December 2007)

Yezzy said:


> I've read that countries in the EU put fluoride in their salt instead of their water, so if anyone wants to bang on about Europe not putting fluoride in their water you better check other potential sources for adding fluoride before you compare them.




Yes, we also have added Iodine in our table salt to so we don't develop thyroid hormone deficiencies.
If not, Cretinism would be a real problem as it is in many third world countries.

Again, another example of good public health policy.
Again, you have a choice, if you don't like public health policy, by Uniodised salt.


----------



## moneymajix (11 December 2007)

*Want nice teeth?* 

Look at nutrition. 

Flouride?  Dr Price is probably rolling over in his grave!



Dr. Weston A. Price (1870-1948), a Cleveland dentist, has been called the "Charles Darwin of Nutrition." In his search for the causes of dental decay and physical degeneration that he observed in his dental practice, he turned from test tubes and microscopes to unstudied evidence among human beings. *Dr. Price sought the factors responsible for fine teeth among the people who had them- the isolated "primitives."* The world became his laboratory. *As he traveled, his findings led him to the belief that dental caries and deformed dental arches resulting in crowded, crooked teeth and unattractive appearance were merely a sign of physical degeneration, resulting from what he had suspected-nutritional deficiencies.*

Price travelled the world over in order to study isolated human groups, including sequestered villages in Switzerland, Gaelic communities in the Outer Hebrides, Eskimos and Indians of North America, Melanesian and Polynesian South Sea Islanders, African tribes, Australian Aborigines, New Zealand Maori and the Indians of South America. Wherever he went, Dr. Price found that beautiful straight teeth, freedom from decay, stalwart bodies, resistance to disease and fine characters were typical of primitives on their traditional diets, rich in essential food factors. 

When Dr. Price analyzed the foods used by isolated primitive peoples he found that they provided at least four times the calcium and other minerals, and at least TEN times the fat-soluble vitamins from animal foods such as butter, fish eggs, shellfish and organ meats. 

The importance of good nutrition for mothers during pregnancy has long been recognized, but Dr. Price's investigation showed that primitives understood and practiced preconception nutritional programs for both parents. Many tribes required a period of premarital nutrition, and children were spaced to permit the mother to maintain her full health and strength, thus assuring subsequent offspring of physical excellence. Special foods were often given to pregnant and lactating women, as well as to the maturing boys and girls in preparation for future parenthood. Dr. Price found these foods to be very rich in fat soluble vitamins A and D nutrients found only in animal fats. 

*These primitives with their fine bodies, homogeneous reproduction, emotional stability and freedom from degenerative ills stand forth in sharp contrast to those subsisting on the impoverished foods of civilization-sugar, white flour, pasteurized milk and convenience foods filled with extenders and additives. *

The photographs of Dr. Weston Price illustrate the difference in facial structure between those on native diets and those whose parents had adopted the "civilized" diets of devitalized processed foods.


http://www.westonaprice.org/nutritiongreats/price.html

See the photographs at the above site.


----------



## Kimosabi (11 December 2007)

moneymajix said:


> *Want nice teeth?*
> 
> Look at nutrition.
> 
> ...




Nutrition is everything.  Raw Organic Foods are the key to Great Health.

I know one guy who switched to a 100% raw organic food diet and has had his wisdom teeth that have been pulled out start regrowing after 6 months, but I'm a kook so don't bother listening to me.

Dr Christophers biggest complaint from people that started getting proper nutrition and using his herbal tooth powder was that people fillings were falling out because the Teeth had started to repair themselves.


----------



## Yeti (11 December 2007)

> Opinions are like a**h**es -
> Everybody has one.........




That's an interesting analogy BraceFace....


----------



## Knobby22 (11 December 2007)

Yezzy said:


> I've read that countries in the EU put fluoride in their salt instead of their water, so if anyone wants to bang on about Europe not putting fluoride in their water you better check other potential sources for adding fluoride before you compare them.




You are right!! And milk with added fluoride is used in some other countries especially the third world. It is recommended by the World Heath Organisation.

http://www.fluorideinformation.com/topic.aspx?main=6&sub=603#1

That and Bravefaces comments have pushed me over the line to the pro side.
The AMA and dentists approve it small amounts are obviously necessary in our diet, as is also the case with Magnesium and Iodine. All will poison with large concentrations but are essential for human health.

Also there is a real danger with fluoride tablets for kids who take too many. I can see why the water supply method is much more preferable.


----------



## moneymajix (11 December 2007)

I prefer to have a choice.


"The last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." 

Dr. Viktor E(mil) Frankl


----------



## Yeti (11 December 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Nutrition is everything.  Raw Organic Foods are the key to Great Health.
> 
> I know one guy who switched to a 100% raw organic food diet and has had his wisdom teeth that have been pulled out start regrowing after 6 months, but I'm a kook so don't bother listening to me.
> 
> Dr Christophers biggest complaint from people that started getting proper nutrition and using his herbal tooth powder was that people fillings were falling out because the Teeth had started to repair themselves.




I agree with what you're saying Kimosabi, but would like to add that nutrition is only half of the picture, the other half is _what we stay away from._ Stay away from drugs (medical and "recreational"), and everything added to your food and drink that does not naturally belong there. That includes Fluoride. The answer is always simple- do what nature intended. One of the best guides to what to eat that I have ever come across is the Macrobiotic principle: "Only eat what is locally produced and in season".


----------



## Yezzy (11 December 2007)

Yeti said:


> I agree with what you're saying Kimosabi, but would like to add that nutrition is only half of the picture, the other half is _what we stay away from._ Stay away from drugs (medical and "recreational"), and everything added to your food and drink that does not naturally belong there. That includes Fluoride. The answer is always simple- do what nature intended. One of the best guides to what to eat that I have ever come across is the Macrobiotic principle: "Only eat what is locally produced and in season".




Water naturally contains fluoride.


----------



## Kimosabi (11 December 2007)

Yeti said:


> I agree with what you're saying Kimosabi, but would like to add that nutrition is only half of the picture, the other half is _what we stay away from._ Stay away from drugs (medical and "recreational"), and everything added to your food and drink that does not naturally belong there. That includes Fluoride. The answer is always simple- do what nature intended. One of the best guides to what to eat that I have ever come across is the Macrobiotic principle: "Only eat what is locally produced and in season".



Interestingly, since I've started with locally grown Raw Organic foods following what Dr Schulze recommends, I'm off all pharmaceutical drugs including asthma and acid reflux medications, lost weight and feel 5 years younger.  Since I've been doing hot/cold showers, much of my Back Pain has disappeared as well requiring less visits to the Chiropractor.

I've also got a Vitamin C shower filter that cuts out the chlorine in the shower water and have been switching to all natural soaps, shampoo's, conditioners, washing powders, cleaning products etc.

I have reverse osmosis for drinking water and I will be getting a whole house water filter to strip out chlorine and floride etc from the mains water supply for the whole house.

Another interesting side point, the government in America is now requiring that all foods including organic are to be irradiated and sprayed with flouride(I can't find the article at the moment but I will post it when I do).


----------



## Whiskers (11 December 2007)

Yezzy said:


> Water naturally contains fluoride.




 Bull****

Rain water DOES NOT contain fluoride.

Ground water often, but not always contains fluoride. The levels vary from none to toxic, requiring treatment.


----------



## Yezzy (11 December 2007)

Whiskers said:


> Bull****
> 
> Rain water DOES NOT contain fluoride.
> 
> Ground water often, but not always contains fluoride. The levels vary from none to toxic, requiring treatment.




Yeah, I could have qualified it a bit better. But the point still stands that water, in most cases, naturally contains fluoride.


----------



## Julia (11 December 2007)

BraceFace said:


> you state you were in a Fluoridated area for one month (as an adult?).
> Fluoride in the water supply does not cause extrinsic staining to the teeth either. Other minerals might.
> 
> 
> ...



So now you - an anonymous poster on a stock forum who gives no indication of his/her qualifications in the area (perhaps you are a dentist, perhaps a government employee?) knows more about what happened to my teeth than my dentist!!!

A minor cosmetic issue?  OK, fine, if you think completely brown, rotten looking teeth are a minor issue.


----------



## Julia (11 December 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Interestingly, since I've started with locally grown Raw Organic foods following what Dr Schulze recommends, I'm off all pharmaceutical drugs including asthma and acid reflux medications, lost weight and feel 5 years younger.  Since I've been doing hot/cold showers, much of my Back Pain has disappeared as well requiring less visits to the Chiropractor.
> 
> I've also got a Vitamin C shower filter that cuts out the chlorine in the shower water and have been switching to all natural soaps, shampoo's, conditioners, washing powders, cleaning products etc.
> 
> ...




Kimosabi, where did you obtain the reverse osmosis filter for your drinking water?  In the regional centre where I live no one seems to have heard of them.


----------



## moneymajix (11 December 2007)

Kimosabi

Congratulations on your good sense and good health.

Helping the planet too!

Well done!


----------



## BraceFace (11 December 2007)

Julia said:


> So now you - an anonymous poster on a stock forum who gives no indication of his/her qualifications in the area (perhaps you are a dentist, perhaps a government employee?) knows more about what happened to my teeth than my dentist!!!
> 
> A minor cosmetic issue?  OK, fine, if you think completely brown, rotten looking teeth are a minor issue.




I do not feel that I need to state my qualifications , but my forum nickname might give you a clue.

Julia information on Fluorosis is not part of a secret dentist's club. Just do a google search or even Wikepedia search or go down to your local Medical/Dental library and have a read. 
What you described on this forum as Fluorosis affecting your teeth (as best as I can tell), simply isn't. Unless of course your permanent teeth were brown and mottled when they first erupted around age 6-7 yrs.

You have taken me out of context.
Mild Fluorosis (as is commonly seen as small white blotches on incisor teeth) is a minor cosmetic issue, not a dental health issue. Even severe Fluorosis , which is exceedingly rare and is usually misdiagnosed from Amelogenesis Imperfecta or Enamel Hypoplasia (which have nothing to do with Fluoride) is cosmetic. These teeth are NOT rotten, they just dont look very nice, which by definition, is a cosmetic prblem.
Again, these disorder's manifest themselves in children, not adults.

I agree with other poster's comments about nutrition and good oral hygiene, these are very important when you look at dental health holistically. But unfortunately as a rule, most of the Australian populalation cannot or choose not to maintain good diets and not eat junk food, brush and floss twice a day and see their dentist twice a year for checks. That is an undeniable fact. Fluoridating the water means that the impact of our personal dental shortcomings is minimised  and public (and private) dental health costs and waiting lists do not skyrocket.


----------



## BraceFace (11 December 2007)

Yeti said:


> That's an interesting analogy BraceFace....




Actually it's Dirty Harryism.

I too have an opinion, as I have a bum. And proud of it

On this particular topic, I have a stong scientific opinion and I can't let some of the flase and misleading claims go by without comment.

I feel so much better now that's off my chest(and teeth)


----------



## moneymajix (11 December 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9hpMgKI_NU


----------



## moneymajix (11 December 2007)

BraceTheFace

One A...H...'s opinion, as you say.



> On this particular topic, I have a stong scientific opinion and I can't let some of the _flase and misleading claims go by without comment_.







> I feel so much better now that's off my chest(and teeth)




Glad that s... is on your teeth and not mine.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9hpMgKI_NU


--------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Knobby22 (11 December 2007)

moneymajix said:


> BraceTheFace
> 
> One A...H...'s opinion, as you say.
> 
> ...





No need to be rude.
Freedom of choice is overrated. The choice is often wrong. This will be caused by lack of knowledge or will power or money to make the correct decision.


----------



## moneymajix (11 December 2007)

Knobby

I agree my comment may have been somewhat rude. Sorry.

I normally restrain myself. 
In this instance, my interpretation of the poster was that they were being condescending. I may be wrong.

Your comment:


> The choice is often wrong.





Wrong in whose opinion?

Right and wrong is coloured by the time period you are living in, your culture, society and a myriad of things. 

For example, slavery was once legal and acceptable in a variety of countries.
Why was it legal?
My guess is that one major factor for the practice of slavery was that people in power were making money from it.
Just cause it was legal didn't make it right. Or did it ??????

All the best.
_______________________________________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeUz9zoZrc4&feature=related
_______________________________________________________


----------



## Whiskers (11 December 2007)

Braceface, I am having a bit of trouble with the credability of your arguement.

You say you have a stong scientific opinion and I can't let some of the flase and misleading claims go by without comment. Hmmm.

You say that fluoride is added to water supplies as a public health issue... and for the greater good.


Isn't it the truth that fluoride is only found on the earths crust in minisqule amounts, that is until industry started mining the earth?


*Isn't it the truth that fluoride was originally added to town water supplies in the US via industrial pollution*?


Isn't it further the truth that the first study ever done into fluoride in town water supplies was by the US industrial polluters (in the face of law suits) to determine how much fluoride people could tolerate without sustaining obvious damage to peoples health?


Isn't it true that industry scientists were the first to promote the use of fluoride as a protection of young childrens teeth as a means of leaving most of the fluoride toxic waste in the enviornment, particularly finding it's way into water supplies... and to make the opponents appear like quacks and lunitics?


Unlike other elements like chlorine that rise out of boiling water with steam... *fluoride concentrates in the remaining water*. So we have higher levels of fluoride in any food made from water particularly boiling water and particularly baby foods!


Fluorine is a very volatile substance readily reacting with all but two elements on earth. The salts of fluorine are among the most toxic natural poisons along with arsnic and lead.


*Fluoride is polluted into the atmosphere *ending up on our crops and in our food and water *by numerous industries including coal fired power plants, oil refineries the superphosphate industry, aluminum smelters, zinc smelters, brickworks, ceramic works and steel mills**.*


*Fluoride is a persistent and non-degradable poison that accumulates in soil, plants, wildlife, and humans.*


Unlike many other elements *fluorine is not essential for any living thing on earth*! It is not naturally incorporated in the necessary building blocks of any living thing!

Given the history of fluoride, one good reason why not many doctors or dentists speak out publicly against fluoridation is simply because they rely on the patronage of the pharmacutical industry who rely on other industry. Speak out and risk being blacklisted out of a job.

And conversely many of the strongest advocates of fluoridation are on the payroll or kick-back list of the polluting industries.

What in amongst all those facts, particularly no 9, says fluoridation of the water supply is in the greater public health benefit let alone necessary for good teeth?

I would like to hear you in your responsible 'scientific' hat, agree or dissagree point by point.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2007)

BraceFace said:


> I do not feel that I need to state my qualifications , but my forum nickname might give you a clue.
> 
> Julia information on Fluorosis is not part of a secret dentist's club.



Brace - just remembered another of those Colgate ads ...
"This man is a dentist, so we're not able to show you his face "  >>..?? 

why not? lol

quick quiz .. See if you can pick which of these is the dentist


----------



## Yeti (11 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> quick quiz .. See if you can pick which of these is the dentist




Must be the guy on the right. The other two have still got teeth.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2007)

Yeti said:


> Must be the guy on the right. The other two have still got teeth.



it's the bloke in the middle mate 
 only bloke I know who can eat an apple through a tennis racquet


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 December 2007)

In Tas, there used to be a lot of fluoride coming out of the Bell Bay smelter. They had (from memory) 2 groups of stacks per line so 6 groups in total. They weren't very high, 20 metres maybe, and had this white smoke coming out 24/7.

The air used to smell somewhat unusual - best way I could describe it is "fresh" but in an artificial, chemically contaminated sense like how laundry powder smells "fresh".

They've since cleaned it up a lot - no visible emissions now and it's all sucked through a massive duct and fan system (about 4.5 MW to run the fans from memory) that was basically built literally on top of the plant and a chemical reaction system to strip it out of the air.

Not sure what they do with what they are recovering. Presumably that's sold for use in water treatment?

Anyway, it caused lots of problems with the bones on cattle in the area. Apparently they go "chalky" with the constant fluoride exposure. That ought to be a warning that it may not be too good for humans either.


----------



## Julia (11 December 2007)

BraceFace said:


> Yes, we also have added Iodine in our table salt to so we don't develop thyroid hormone deficiencies.



Yes, but we can still choose to purchase salt without added Iodine.
You cannot offer this as a comparable argument to something added to our water supply.


----------



## Julia (11 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I think Julia is saying if she could just be directed to the people who are ignoring her pleas, then there'd be a few more of those DMFT's you mentioned  - maybe the "dunno missing after the fight teeth".
> 
> You'd think she'd be entitled to govt assistance to remove the flouride at her home yes?
> (Although I'd neved thought about it before she mentioned it)



Thank you, 2020.  Any statements by either the pro fluoride lobby or government can hardly be considered balanced in view of their complete refusal to accept or acknowledge any concerns from citizens about the addition of fluoride to the water supply.

When this was first discussed a couple of years ago, on the advice of my local Council (who were opposed to the addition of fluoride and still are)
I wrote to the Director General of Qld Health.  It took three months for them to write back, a basic form letter, saying that they accepted the benefits of fluoride and not the disadvantages.  In other words - go jump.

So, thousands of people could write to the government and it would make no difference.  Once again the Qld Labor Party takes no account of any public opinion other than that which suits their decisions.  Off topic, but, despite a majority of Queenslanders wanting daylight saving, the government has decreed it will not happen.  Ah, democracy.


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Ah, democracy.



Yes, simply a choice of which incompetent autocracy to make us miserable for the next _x_ years, but I digress...


----------



## Julia (11 December 2007)

BraceFace said:


> I do not feel that I need to state my qualifications , but my forum nickname might give you a clue.



Thank you.  Now I know which part of the lobby group you represent.



> Julia information on Fluorosis is not part of a secret dentist's club. Just do a google search or even Wikepedia search or go down to your local Medical/Dental library and have a read.



I have, of course, done this.  There is just as much information available which discredits the use of fluoride as that which promotes it.
I have at no stage taken a position on its effectiveness or otherwise in terms of dental health.  Selfish creature that I am, I simply do not want to have brown teeth again.  And, Braceface, if you say once again that this is merely a "cosmetic" problem I shall feel like doing you an injury such as will require you to seek the assistance of your own profession.  It is arrogant of you to assume that rotten looking teeth are of no consequence.

The one firm I have today found who makes reverse osmosis filtration systems in this area seems unclear about whether or not it will remove fluoride.  Cost, installed, about $1000.  This is an unfair imposition.

Braceface, if you would be so kind, could you please address the question of why so many countries who previously fluoridated their water supply, have now withdrawn it.  I don't need to repeat the long list of countries.
Are all these governments being simply uncaring and frivolous?

And one more question:  We undoubtedly have a problem with tooth decay.
I would suggest this is at least in part due to the withdrawal of any government dental scheme.  i.e. what would happen to the general health of many people should Medicare cease to function?  How much undiagnosed hypertension, cancer and many other diseases would kill people rather than as at present being diagnosed in time for remedial action to be taken?

Just as great a problem (in my opinion much greater) as dental health is obesity.  What is the government doing to address this?

Hypertension and depression are also of significant proportions.
Should we therefore add anti-hypertensive and anti-depressant drugs to the water supply?
Yes, I have raised these questions before, but you have not chosen to address them.  Your comments would be appreciated.


----------



## Julia (11 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> Yes, simply a choice of which incompetent autocracy to make us miserable for the next _x_ years, but I digress...




Sigh.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Thank you, 2020.  Any statements by either the pro fluoride lobby or government can hardly be considered balanced in view of their complete refusal to accept or acknowledge any concerns from citizens about the addition of fluoride to the water supply.




Julia, 
I mean asking them to remove it (fluoride) seems reasonable to me.
It's not like you are asking them to remove the "chemicals" from recycled water for instance (a la the Toowoomba referendum lol) .

But - in that instance, the council would just accuse you of taking the piss I guess


----------



## Whiskers (11 December 2007)

Julia said:


> And, Braceface, if you say once again that this is merely a "cosmetic" problem I shall feel like doing you an injury such as will require you to seek the assistance of your own profession.





:321: 



> The one firm I have today found who makes reverse osmosis filtration systems in this area seems unclear about whether or not it will remove fluoride.  Cost, installed, about $1000.  This is an unfair imposition.




Absolutely.



> Braceface, if you would be so kind, could you please address the question of why so many countries who previously fluoridated their water supply, have now withdrawn it.  I don't need to repeat the long list of countries.
> Are all these governments being simply uncaring and frivolous?




In the early nineties the EU forced the US to lower the flouride levels from 3ppm to 1ppm in their food exports to the EU. I believe the US exporters are now attempting to absolutely minimise flouride residues to hold the trade.


----------



## chops_a_must (12 December 2007)

I think you'll find Julia, that in the past, a lot of funding earmarked for Queensland health has been on the condition that they add fluoride. So it's perhaps a movement they've tried to get going for a while.

I prefer to listen to people more informed than me about it. The bro who has a post grad degree in public health doesn't have a problem with fluoride. He says the only real side effect is upset stomachs. The real problem appears to be that authorities are so cautious about adding fluoride, that the levels they add may not actually meet therepeutic levels.

The dad, who is an industrial chemist, has no problem with it and says people would be petrified about a lot of consumables if they actually knew the chemical processes involved.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. I'm more worried about the stuff the water picks up along the way through the copper pipes etc. I know I need more iron in my diet, but I'm not sure drinking rust is the right way to go about it.

From a philosophical perspective, anti-fluoridationists are in a bit of a double bind here. Either, they accept that fluoride causes side effects, one of those side-effects being the changing chemistry of teeth make up, lowering the pH dissolverability, plus other things. Or, they argue it does nothing at all.

It doesn't appear to accumulate in soft tissue, only bone. Which apparently isn't an issue so long as your calcium intake is ok. Doesn't mean it doesn't act on mental function though. My anti-dep, prozac has a fluoride compound in it. But this begs the question, how come if Queenslanders don't have fluoride, then *insert generic Queenslander insult*?

Another thing about countries that don't have fluoridisation, they are generally all hard core lefty socialist types. Countries with fluoride are generally apathetic and conservative politically. I'm sure it's a position Julia doesn't want to be in: opposing fluoride, and having wave upon wave of socialist government. :


----------



## Whiskers (12 December 2007)

Effects of fluoride poisining - by Geofrey Nochimson, MD, a member of the American College of Emergency Physicians



> *Pathophysiology*: Fluoride has several mechanisms of toxicity. Ingested fluoride initially acts locally on the intestinal mucosa. It can form hydrofluoric acid in the stomach, which leads to GI irritation or corrosive effects. Following ingestion, the GI tract is the earliest and most commonly affected organ system.
> 
> Once absorbed, fluoride binds calcium ions and may lead to hypocalcemia. Fluoride has direct cytotoxic effects and interferes with a number of enzyme systems; it disrupts oxidative phosphorylation, glycolysis, coagulation, and neurotransmission (by binding calcium). Fluoride inhibits Na+/K+ -ATPase, which may lead to hyperkalemia by extracellular release of potassium. Fluoride inhibits acetylcholinesterase, which may be partly responsible for hypersalivation, vomiting, and diarrhea (cholinergic signs). Seizures may result from both hypomagnesemia and hypocalcemia. Severe fluoride toxicity will result in multiorgan failure. Central vasomotor depression as well as direct cardiotoxicity also may occur. Death usually results from respiratory paralysis, dysrhythmia, or cardiac failure.
> http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic181.htm


----------



## chops_a_must (12 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> But - in that instance, the council would just accuse you of taking the piss I guess




Ahahaha!

While we are on the subject of dangerous beverages and such, this is one for you Wayne:




> The view: Why Fox want to mutilate your thirst
> 
> This week's film blogs have been left aghast as Mike Judge's grotesque fictional energy drink Brawndo became a reality
> Danny Leigh
> ...


----------



## disarray (12 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> Yes, simply a choice of which incompetent autocracy to make us miserable for the next _x_ years, but I digress...




i'm with you on the cynicism here wayne, but as far as fluoride goes, it is supported by the australian medical association and the australian dental association. while i have little to no faith in our politicians and bureaucrats, i do at least respect the education, professionalism and opinions of the AMA / ADA. if they recommend this policy then its because the lead board of doctors and dentists in this country think its the best thing for society. accusations of money trails and corruption cast a bad light on these professionals.


----------



## ajoz (12 December 2007)

disarray said:


> i'm with you on the cynicism here wayne, but as far as fluoride goes, it is supported by the australian medical association and the australian dental association. while i have little to no faith in our politicians and bureaucrats, i do at least respect the education, professionalism and opinions of the AMA / ADA. if they recommend this policy then its because the lead board of doctors and dentists in this country think its the best thing for society. accusations of money trails and corruption cast a bad light on these professionals.




A formal education will only teach you what is taught by the educators. We should always investigate and think for themselves and not take as absolute what is said by anyone. While the intentions of the educators and professions might be good, often the outcomes can be disastrous. Have a look at the link below of previously accepted medical practices that I imagine would have only stopped because people challenged the common held beliefs of the time. Looking back these things look ridiculous. How many years from now will others look back and think the same about the things we do now.

*The 10 Most Insane Medical Practices in History*
http://www.cracked.com/article_15669_10-most-insane-medical-practices-in-history.html

This article below shows some statistics from America but I am sure Australia or any other country wouldn't be to different.

http://www.heart-disease-bypass-surgery.com/data/articles/52.htm
This week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.

"This information is a follow-up of the Institute of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.

The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she describes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:

    * 12,000 -----unnecessary surgery 8
    * 7,000 -----medication errors in hospitals 9
    * 20,000 ----other errors in hospitals 10
    * 80,000 ----infections in hospitals 10
    * 106,000 ---non-error, negative effects of drugs 2

These total to 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!

What does the word iatrogenic mean? This term is defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially of a complication of treatment.

Dr. Starfield offers several warnings in interpreting these numbers:

    * First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
    * Second, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
    * Third, the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report.1

If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Even if these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).

Another analysis 11 concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings, with:

    * 116 million extra physician visits
    * 77 million extra prescriptions
    * 17 million emergency department visits
    * 8 million hospitalizations
    * 3 million long-term admissions
    * 199,000 additional deaths
    * $77 billion in extra costs

The high cost of the health care system is considered to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care.

However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.

An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a result of medical errors.2

This might be tolerated if it resulted in better health, but does it? Of 13 countries in a recent comparison,3,4 the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. More specifically, the ranking of the US on several indicators was:

    * 13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages
    * 13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall 14
    * 11th for postneonatal mortality
    * 13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)
    * 11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males
    * 10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for males
    * 10th for life expectancy at 40 years for females, 9th for males
    * 7th for life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7th for males
    * 3rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3rd for males
    * 10th for age-adjusted mortality

The poor performance of the US was recently confirmed by a World Health Organization study, which used different data and ranked the United States as 15th among 25 industrialized countries."


"These estimates of death due to error are lower than those in a recent Institutes of Medicine report, and if the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000.

Even at the lower estimate of 225,000 deaths per year, this constitutes the third leading cause of death in the US, following heart disease and cancer.

Lack of technology is certainly not a contributing factor to the US's low ranking.

    * Among 29 countries, the United States is second only to Japan in the availability of magnetic resonance imaging units and computed tomography scanners per million population. 17
    * Japan, however, ranks highest on health, whereas the US ranks among the lowest.
    * It is possible that the high use of technology in Japan is limited to diagnostic technology not matched by high rates of treatment, whereas in the US, high use of diagnostic technology may be linked to more treatment.
    * Supporting this possibility are data showing that the number of employees per bed (full-time equivalents) in the United States is highest among the countries ranked, whereas they are very low in Japan, far lower than can be accounted for by the common practice of having family members rather than hospital staff provide the amenities of hospital care.

Journal American Medical Association Vol 284 July 26, 2000

COMMENT: Folks, this is what they call a "Landmark Article". Only several ones like this are published every year. One of the major reasons it is so huge as that it is published in JAMA which is the largest and one of the most respected medical journals in the entire world. I did find it most curious that the best wire service in the world, Reuter's, did not pick up this article. I have no idea why they let it slip by.

I would encourage you to bookmark this article and review it several times so you can use the statistics to counter the arguments of your friends and relatives who are so enthralled with the traditional medical paradigm. These statistics prove very clearly that the system is just not working. It is broken and is in desperate need of repair.

I was previously fond of saying that drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in this country. However, this article makes it quite clear that the more powerful number is that doctors are the third leading cause of death in this country killing nearly a quarter million people a year. The only more common causes are cancer and heart disease. This statistic is likely to be seriously underestimated as much of the coding only describes the cause of organ failure and does not address iatrogenic causes at all.

Japan seems to have benefited from recognizing that technology is wonderful, but just because you diagnose something with it, one should not be committed to undergoing treatment in the traditional paradigm. Their health statistics reflect this aspect of their philosophy as much of their treatment is not treatment at all, but loving care rendered in the home.

Care, not treatment, is the answer. Drugs, surgery and hospitals are rarely the answer to chronic health problems. Facilitating the God-given healing capacity that all of us have is the key. Improving the diet, exercise, and lifestyle are basic. Effective interventions for the underlying emotional and spiritual wounding behind most chronic illness are also important clues to maximizing health and reducing disease."


Author/Article Information
Author Affiliation: Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Md. Corresponding Author and Reprints: Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Room 452, Baltimore, MD 21205-1996 (e-mail: bstarfie@jhsph.edu).


----------



## Kimosabi (12 December 2007)

disarray said:


> i'm with you on the cynicism here wayne, but as far as fluoride goes, it is supported by the australian medical association and the australian dental association. while i have little to no faith in our politicians and bureaucrats, i do at least respect the education, professionalism and opinions of the AMA / ADA. if they recommend this policy then its because the lead board of doctors and dentists in this country think its the best thing for society. accusations of money trails and corruption cast a bad light on these professionals.



The ADA also has no problem with people getting a mouth full of Mercury Fillings that many people have to get rid of years later.

And the AMA has no problem with Vaccines that have Mercury and Formaldehyde in them.

Here's a web site with some of the lovely ingredients found in Vaccines:

http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/ingredie.html

Me personally, I'm not going to get anymore vaccines, half the time the Vaccine infects you with the disease which then causes an outbreak anyway.

If I did get one of the diseases which is highly unlikely if you are on a Raw Food Diet and getting proper nutrition, I'd hit it with Dr Schulzes Plague Tonic.  I hade a sore troat the other day, I gulped down some of his Plague Tonic which I made myself and the sore troat was gone within a couple of hours.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 December 2007)

ajoz said:


> A
> 
> However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.
> 
> ...




This article is a classic case of how two different thing are incorrectly linked to reach a conclusion.
The reason the US comes very low as compared to other countries in the world e.g. last in infant mortality!!! Is that if you are poor you do not get access to proper medical treatment. There was a great article in New Scientist that showed more mothers and babies die in the US than other OECD countries because they are not given medical access. It is disgusting. One City did a trial and lowered the mortality rate significantly however Bush said he didn't want to encourage a welfare state. The fact that single mothers had no hope of paying for private insurance and so were having no health checks during pregnancy didn't enter his so called Christian heart or head.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 December 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> The
> 
> If I did get one of the diseases which is highly unlikely if you are on a Raw Food Diet and getting proper nutrition, I'd hit it with Dr Schulzes Plague Tonic.  I hade a sore troat the other day, I gulped down some of his Plague Tonic which I made myself and the sore troat was gone within a couple of hours.





I love how you would prefer to use Dr Schulzes Plague Tonic.
If you got a disease rather than prevent the disease such as German measles or Whooping cough or Polio, and therefore risk spreading rubella to an unborn foetus within a young pregnant women or kill a new born baby with Whooping Cough or cause a young child to grow up unable to walk after getting Polio. You are strong enough but the little are not.

Does it work on the plague by the way?


----------



## Kimosabi (12 December 2007)

Knobby22 said:


> I love how you would prefer to use Dr Schulzes Plague Tonic.
> If you got a disease rather than prevent the disease such as German measles or Whooping cough or Polio, and therefore risk spreading rubella to an unborn foetus within a young pregnant women or kill a new born baby with Whooping Cough or cause a young child to grow up unable to walk after getting Polio. You are strong enough but the little are not.
> 
> Does it work on the plague by the way?



Maybe you should do some research before spouting off about vaccines...



> Doctor’s are starting to think that the polio epidemics of the 1940’s and 1950’s may have been caused by the high number of tonsillectomies done in the 1920’, 30’s and 40’s. They have discovered that the only area of the body that can synthesize the antibody to poliomyelitis is the tonsils. If you don’t have tonsils you can’t fight off polio.






> "During the polio epidemics it was found that people who had their tonsils removed were 3-5 times more likely to develop paralysis….There were many at that time that suggested that polio was an iatrogenic disease…..we caused thousands of cases of paralysis. We did not cause the polio , but we converted people who would have recovered from a vial illness into people with a paralytic illness."—Dr Mark Donohoe MB BS



http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio4.html


----------



## chops_a_must (12 December 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Maybe you should do some research before spouting off about vaccines...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Removing tonsils has nothing to do with the validity of vaccines. I'm sure you can do better than a 50 year old medical article...

And the fact remains, polio is still a problem in areas where I doubt anyone has the means to have tonsils removed.


----------



## Julia (12 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Another thing about countries that don't have fluoridisation, they are generally all hard core lefty socialist types. Countries with fluoride are generally apathetic and conservative politically. I'm sure it's a position Julia doesn't want to be in: opposing fluoride, and having wave upon wave of socialist government. :



Herewith list of fluoride status of several countries.  I wouldn't have thought they - with the exception of China and Poland - fit your categorisation as hard core lefty socialists!


----------



## Kimosabi (12 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Removing tonsils has nothing to do with the validity of vaccines. I'm sure you can do better than a 50 year old medical article...
> 
> And the fact remains, polio is still a problem in areas where I doubt anyone has the means to have tonsils removed.



Dr Schulzes Herbal Formula for Polio etc, you can even make it yourself, all you need is a Blender and Vodka...



> Nerve Stimulative and Restorative Tonic:
> Application: This Herbal Formula is VERY EFFECTIVE for Nervous System Degeneration (A.L.S., C.P., M.D., M.S., Polio, ...)!!
> Therapeutic Action: This VERY POWERFUL Formula will STIMULATE, REPAIR, RESTORE and REBUILD the AFFLICTED Nerves!!​
> Formula: 4 parts - Skullcap, 4 parts - Oat Seed, 2 parts - St. John's Wort Flowers, 1 part - Celery Seed, 1 part - Lavender, 1 part - Coffee Bean, 1 part - Kola Nut, and 1 part - Ephedra/Ma Huang (optional).
> ...



http://healingtools.tripod.com/nrvtncs.html​ 
Combine the above with good nutrition, hot/cold showers, some bodywork etc and you'll be better in no time...​


----------



## chops_a_must (12 December 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Dr Schulzes Herbal Formula for Polio etc, you can even make it yourself
> 
> 
> http://healingtools.tripod.com/nrvtncs.html
> ...




AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh right. So that's what has almost eradicated it has it?

Are you on commission?


----------



## Kimosabi (12 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Oh right. So that's what has almost eradicated it has it?
> 
> Are you on commission?



Commission for making it yourself, how do you work that one out?!?!?

I just did my research and I feel great since I started doing what Dr Schulze Teaches and my medical bills have plummetted...


----------



## chops_a_must (12 December 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Commission for making it yourself, how do you work that one out?!?!?
> 
> I just did my research and I feel great since I started doing what Dr Schulze Teaches and my medical bills have plummetted...



For plugging his products in general.

If he was practicing in Australia, he would be de-registered straight out. He breaches just about every code of conduct and regulation within the Australian alternative therapy associations. Nuff said.

I can just imagine this guy being in the ER. "Doctor, this patient has a femoral artery bleed."
"Ok. Give him some guarana and hot and cold showers, stat! See, this is what happens when you don't eat healthy, people starting hitting you in the legs with axes."

Wackos like this are really really damaging to the industry.


----------



## Kimosabi (12 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> For plugging his products in general.
> 
> If he was practicing in Australia, he would be de-registered straight out. He breaches just about every code of conduct and regulation within the Australian alternative therapy associations. Nuff said.
> 
> ...




I'm not plugging his products, I'm plugging his techniques.

We wouldn't want to have people getting educated and taking control of their health, now would we.

The treatment for bleeding, strokes and heart attacks is extremely strong cayenne pepper tincture or powder ==> http://members.tripod.com/healingtools/thns7b.html#bld

Maybe when the doctors want to start chopping pieces out of you or you have been given 4 weeks to live of you you might be a little more receptive to looking into alternative medicine. Dr Schulze spent 20 years treating people with Terminal Diseases who had been given death sentences by their doctors only to have many of his patients recover and proceed to outlive their bigotted, narrow minded doctors

Cayenne Pepper Video's


----------



## chops_a_must (12 December 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Maybe when the doctors want to start chopping pieces out of you or you have been given 4 weeks to live of you you might be a little more receptive to looking into alternative medicine.  Dr Schulze spent 20 years treating people with Terminal Diseases who had been given death sentences by their doctors only to have many of his patients recover and proceed to outlive their bigotted, narrow minded doctors




Mate, my work is in the alternative health industry. So yes, I know a thing or two about it.

There is a difference between writing unsubstantiated and unverified dribble, and actually using and applying tested and quantified techniques and methods. I'm not exactly sure how this guy can claim anything, considering he can't even get the terminology correct in the areas he is supposedly treating.

Most of these terminal diseases would be cancerous, and you can't say it is the _doctors_ that have given them the death sentence, it's the illness itself. Oncologists are perhaps some of the toughest bastards I've ever met, but you would have to be too if you knew a fair chunk of your patients were going to die, and you had to constantly tell people's families that. By and large most oncologists are adaptive and accepting of ideas. But only if they are backed up with evidence (rightly so), not utter bollocks like this. A lot of alternative therapies are being tested at University level, and those that aren't should be taken with a grain of salt. One of my specialist modalities is linked to Universities in Adelaide, Austria and Canada, and has been proven to help prevent onset of cancer (in high risk groups), recurrence and other post surgical intervention complications. 

Unless you can find THAT sort of backup for HIS claims, I suggest you ask him, and yourself, why not?

I can sit here and say that this method and that method helps prolong peoples lives, but it means nothing, because there is always a random survivability element. And what these charlatans do, is latch onto that as some kind of proof for their "miracle work", without actually looking at the base case of "survivor" rates. 

I spent a great deal of time looking at his sites, and I saw absolutely nothing to back up his claims. I can say here that I have a 150% winning rate on my trades, with an average win of 20R, but I will provide no proof. Who the hell would believe me?

Until you can find independently verified support for his claims, I will continue to tear his ideas to shreds.


----------



## Kimosabi (12 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Unless you can find THAT sort of backup for HIS claims, I suggest you ask him, and yourself, why not?



Here's a whole Forum Sub-Thread dedicated to Dr Schulze's technique, etc.

http://curezone.org/forums/f.asp?f=321

A couple of testimonials from people who have used Dr Schulze's techniques



> You will find several testimonials here in this forum. I helped my Dad with the Incurables Program. He was supposed to be dead here in a couple of months, but he is doing great. He had advanced metastasized prostate cancer. The doctors said there was nothing they could do for him. They told him to go home and live a nice couple of years, but that was all he should expect. I have also worked with several other people. A lady with Breast Cancer that I worked with was supposed to be dead last fall, but she feels better than she has in years and all of the cancer markers are gone. I am working with a woman who has lymphatic cancer. The progress has arrested. She is not diligent in the IP protocol, but has adopted some of Dr. Schulze 's protocols.
> http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=546909#i






> I have cured my CFS and IBS using Dr. S's methods. I've completely cured tough eczema in people using Dr. Christopher's. I've had one cold in 3 years when I used to get 3-4 per year. I've cured people's constipation, sore throats, Crohn's, avoided knee surgery, halted depression.......
> 
> The methods are impressive.
> http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=546912#i






> Hi! I am on the Incurables program for Breast Cancer right now and it is going great! YOu can email me if you want and I will share more with you. I do however, know a man I met through Dr. Schulze 's pharmacy who cured himself of lymphoma that had spread to his bone. He had tried chemo but it was not any better. They gave him a 2 month break and when he went back he was completely cancer free. He lives here in California and would certainly talk to you. He is an amazing man and very inspirational. Let me know and I will arrange a conversation.
> http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=546926#i




Shred Away


----------



## chops_a_must (12 December 2007)

"I've cured people's constipation, sore throats"

You can't cure temporary conditions!

Anecdotes just don't cut it. This person next to me thinks my work is the most awesome awesome that ever awesomed. Doesn't mean squat...


----------



## Yeti (12 December 2007)

Kimosabi, your patience is admirable and the information you provide in your posts appreciated.

Chops, it is people like you that make me long for life on a distant planet.


----------



## andykm (12 December 2007)

Always arguments both sides of the fluoride debate. For what it is worth, I went though an extended phase of a sore gut. Got all the regular endoscoscopies and stuff and in the end they said it was just your typical IBS and could not do much about it. It really was driving me nuts.

It did not click at the time, but as it happen, my dentist had put me on a toothpaste with a high fluoride level about when the IBS started. One day I ran out and forgot to replace the tube. The IBS vanished. Went back on the higher fluoride stuff to test the theory and it came back straight away.

At least if the IBS comes back after fluoride is added to the water I will have a fair idea of what is going on in my situation.

Just my experience, not advice one way or the other, but was glad to be rid of the IBS.

Cheers


----------



## Kimosabi (12 December 2007)

Yeti said:


> Kimosabi, your patience is admirable and the information you provide in your posts appreciated.
> 
> Chops, it is people like you that make me long for life on a distant planet.






> *chops_a_must*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Say's it all.

People like Dr Schulze who provide information for free and empower people to take control of their own health are a threat to those in the medical industry who make a living from the unnecessary suffering of those who have been duped by the misinformation from pharmacutical, medical, chemical, food industries etc.

There ain't no money to be made in having a healthy population and Chops has obviously demonstrated that he is part of the Problem...


----------



## chops_a_must (12 December 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Say's it all.
> 
> People like Dr Schulze who provide information for free and empower people to take control of their own health are a threat to those in the medical industry who make a living from the unnecessary suffering of those who have been duped by the misinformation from pharmacutical, medical, chemical, food industries etc.
> 
> There ain't no money to be made in having a healthy population and Chops has obviously demonstrated that he is part of the Problem...




Once again you demonstrate you have absolutely no idea.

It's a quote in a movie from that character in my avatar.

Try again.


----------



## CFD (12 December 2007)

andykm said:


> ~~ my dentist had put me on a toothpaste with a high fluoride level about when the IBS started. ~~
> Cheers




You're not supposed to swallow 

That for me is the point about Fluoride, if you want it you can get toothpastes, have a fluoride treatment with your yearly dental check up, so you have Fluoride where it does some good, in your mouth.


----------



## Julia (12 December 2007)

andykm said:


> Always arguments both sides of the fluoride debate. For what it is worth, I went though an extended phase of a sore gut. Got all the regular endoscoscopies and stuff and in the end they said it was just your typical IBS and could not do much about it. It really was driving me nuts.
> 
> It did not click at the time, but as it happen, my dentist had put me on a toothpaste with a high fluoride level about when the IBS started. One day I ran out and forgot to replace the tube. The IBS vanished. Went back on the higher fluoride stuff to test the theory and it came back straight away.
> 
> ...



Andy, even the pro fluoride lobby acknowledges that gastrointestinal upset is a potential side effect of fluoride.  You have simply demonstrated how easy it is for this to happen.  Thanks for recounting your experience.

What will you do if you find the IBS recurs when you start drinking fluoridated water?


----------



## Whiskers (12 December 2007)

Julia said:


> The Queensland government has announced it will put fluoride in the water supply from next year.
> 
> 
> Has anyone successfully fought local or State governments on this issue?




Not this particular issue, Julia... but I have had success in other local and state government issues.

Since this thread has enlightened me, I'm on the case for this one now too. 

But you won't see me out there waving plackards etc. trying to browbeat them into change. That usually only causes them to dig in and fortify their position until it gets to the point where their pride forbids them from admitting they are wrong and do it anyway. 

The formula goes: Thought + belief = Action.

I think you will understand where I'm going, Julia.


----------



## andykm (12 December 2007)

Hi Julia/CFD,

Funny thing is, at the time of my IBS I did a mountain of reseach and fluoride did not factor in the information I had on hand. I mentioned it to my gastro guy when I finally worked out the issue and he didn't really comment one way or the other, which I thought odd (same with the dentist). 

It was only after I stumbled on the answer that I was able to find the relevant research and info to support my experience.

What will I do if it flares up in the future? Guess I will have to drink more bottled water or get a decent filter. I could send the invoices to the premmiers department, but won't hold my breath on that one 

CFD, I'll let that one go through to the keeper


----------



## Sprinter79 (12 December 2007)

Wow there are some 'interesting' theories (at best in this thread). I haven't been on here for a month, and why did I choose to read this thread first!

Fluoride in the water is a public health issue, nothing more, nothing less. The science behind adding fluoride to the diet, in whatever form, is solid. There is enough evidence to suggest that in the majority of the population, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. There is also a body of data that suggests that adding fluoride to the water may, and I stress MAY, cause problems, but the sample sizes are generally very small, and therefore may not be statistically significant. There is plenty of room for more study in this area that is for sure. Remember, nothing can be proven or disproven 100%

As to why fluoride is choosen over anti-depressants or the like, it is mainly a cost thing, but because anti-depressants alter brain function, it would be hard to rationalise it's use. Like has been mentioned previously, I'd be more worried about what my water picks up from the ancient water pipes. Julia, without having a go at you, or your condition, which I think is genuine, were you able to fully investigate the water infrastructure at the place you stayed? Were you able to rule out other causes of the discolouration?

Over consumption of fluoride has similar effects to overuse of anti-inflammitary drugs and pain-killers, and with society's tendancy to rely on these drugs, fluoride may be unfairly blamed. As for the example regarding IBS, that is a prime example of why we don't swallow toothpaste, and why children's toothpaste has little or no fluoride in it... because kids swallow more toothpaste than us adults.

In my battle with CFS and depression, I have had considerable contact with the complimentary medical industry. There are a lot of people pushing their own barrows, with their own agendas, no different to doctors prescribing certain medicines because some sales rep dumped 100 free pens on their desk. Just because something is 'natural' or 'alternative' doesn't mean you should leave your common sense at the door. There are just as many companies pushing their 'natural' therapies as there are pushing 'mainstream' medicine. Take it all with a grain of salt, or in this case, fluoride.

Kimosabi.... *sigh*
Teeth don't grow back.
Fillings don't get pushed out, they fall out because the tooth has continued to rot underneath it.
Cayenne pepper is a stimulant, so if you used it cure bleeding etc, it would be counter productive. It actually promotes the reduction of platelet stickiness which in turn means that the body takes longer to form a blood clot.
I've had my tonsils out, and I don't have polio. I wonder if Murali had his out...
Vaccines usually have a dead, or modified version, of the target illness, so that the body can build up an immunity to it.
Hot/cold alternating showers only provide a short term stimulating effect in the lay person, and going for a brisk walk will give you better long lasting results.

I could go on, but, you know....


----------



## Kimosabi (13 December 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> Wow there are some 'interesting' theories (at best in this thread). I haven't been on here for a month, and why did I choose to read this thread first!
> 
> Fluoride in the water is a public health issue, nothing more, nothing less. The science behind adding fluoride to the diet, in whatever form, is solid. There is enough evidence to suggest that in the majority of the population, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. There is also a body of data that suggests that adding fluoride to the water may, and I stress MAY, cause problems, but the sample sizes are generally very small, and therefore may not be statistically significant. There is plenty of room for more study in this area that is for sure. Remember, nothing can be proven or disproven 100%
> 
> ...



I'll come visit you in hospital after you've been butchered by modern medicine, pity you wouldn't have realised that there were alternatives because you've been dumbed down by the Flouride in the Water.

*sigh*


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2007)

well It's been an amusing experience reading these posts..  thanks all 
You'd think if other countries have gone away from fluoride, then it's possibly not quite as harmless as they say.

Coincidentally this talk of the anticancer drug which gives people "dead jaw".  As Keating would have said ..  put a few moral or ethetical hurdles between a drug company and a pile of money, and watch em sail over them , round em, under em - who cares, just GIMME THE MONEY.   

Trouble is, Julia, it sounds like there aren't enough people to back you in a class action against the state govt - shame.  Sounds like you'd give them a run for their money.  



> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/11/2116052.htm
> Drug makers react to 'dead jaw' concerns
> Posted Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:01pm AEDT
> Updated Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:02pm AEDT
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2007)

Whiskers said:


> The formula goes: Thought + belief = Action.



whisk.. the other formula goes :

lack of thought + lack of belief = TV 
(glub glub ,,, glub glub)

PS (perhaps I should say (most) commercial TV - other than sport of course )


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2007)

lack of thought + lack of belief + lack of action = TV ?


----------



## Yeti (13 December 2007)

Sprinter, shame you weren't here earlier, thank you for clearing this all up so convincingly. And I am sure Julia will appreciate you pointing her in the right direction as to what really may have caused the problem with her teeth.



Sprinter79 said:


> Wow there are some 'interesting' theories (at best in this thread).




You said it.


----------



## Kimosabi (13 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> lack of thought + lack of belief + lack of action = TV ?



Guess What, I don't watch TV anymore...

Research + Belief + Action = 10KG Weight Loss + Off all Pharmaceutical Medicines + More Energy + Better Mental Clarity + Feel Great

But I'm just a Kook, what would I know...


----------



## Julia (13 December 2007)

Just a couple of further points:  reverse osmosis filtration, I'm told by the manufacturers, discards up to four parts of water for every drinkable part it produces.  One unit reduces this to two for one.
So there is a certain irony in this in view of governments urging us to reduce our water use.
About 1% of water is used for drinking.  
That's a lot of fluoride on the cabbage patch and down the toilet.


----------



## CFD (15 December 2007)

Julia said:


> ~~and down the toilet.




You found a good use for it!
(All that healthy, strong, white porcelain)


----------



## Kimosabi (16 December 2007)

Merk drug company vaccines admits injecting cancer viruses 



> This stunning *censored* interview conducted by medical historian Edward Shorter for WGBH public television (Boston) and Blackwell Science was cut from The Health Century due to its huge liability--the admission that Merck drug company vaccines have traditionally been injecting cancer viruses (SV40 and others) in people worldwide.
> 
> This segment of In Lies We Trust: The CIA, Hollywood & Bioterrorism, produced and freely contributed by consumer protector and public health expert, Dr. Leonard Horowitz, features the world's leading vaccine expert, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, who explains why Merck's vaccines have spread AIDS, leukemia, and other horrific plagues worldwide.




http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=327_1195303011


----------



## chops_a_must (16 December 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Merk drug company vaccines admits injecting cancer viruses



Is cancer a virus now is it? Sh*t hey?


----------



## BraceFace (17 December 2007)

Well hasn't this thread turned into quite a slanging match.

I chose to sit out for a while after being threatened with physical violence by one member, labelled an A Hole by another and then given the bird by Mr Whiskers. I've had my own posts on other threads deleted for far less.

To me, you no longer have a creditable argument when you must resort to this kind of behaviour.

Chops - I find your posts amusing and insightful. Your response to Kimosabi's alternative therapy claims are obviously well researched and well thought out.

AndyKM - Irritable Bowel Syndrome is not caused by Fluoride in the concentrations added to drinking water. If it was, we'd all be farting like the proverbial and slugging down peppermint oil like i's going out of fashion. High concentrations of self-ingested Flouride or toxic doses of Fluoride from environmental pollutants are a whole different health issue and are a moot point in this discussion.

Kimosabi - push your tonics and therapies elsewhere mate. This thread is about Fluoride, it's not a Conventional medicine Vs Alternative Medicine debate. It's basically a thread about public choice, as is my interpretation of Julia's main gripe that got this whole debate started. I can't believe the moderators of this forum haven't pulled your postings an opened a new thread, because most of them have nothing to do with Fluoride. 

Sprinter79 - thank you for bringing the debate back to some level of sensible discussion. 

Julia - I final word to you.
I am not part of a lobby group. Unless you consider an entire profession to be a lobby group. Contrary to statements made on this forum by yourself and others, dentists, and most other health professionals are also free thinkers. We are not bound by what we are taught at university by the "educators". University merely teaches us to think intelligently and scientifically about what we do in life and question the logic of propositions placed before us.  
We (dentists that is) are not automatons that do as we are told by a greater authority. We are bound by a professional ethical code to DO NO HARM and that should not be overlooked. It is incumbent upon us as it is all health professionals to constantly update our knowledge and keep in line with contemporary academic and clinical knowledge.Currently, there is much more scientific support for the use of Fluoride in drinking water than against it. That is not my opinion, that's just how it is my friend (for the moment at least)
There is nothing sinister in the ADA or the AMA or WHO (or any other health group you might like to find a three letter acronym for!) supporting the use of Fluoride at concentrations of 1ppm or less in the drinking water as a means for reducing the incidence of dental decay. They are recommending BEST CURRENT PRACTICE on a population health basis.
Minority groups and people with certain health conditions may not like this, but you have a right to protest (as you have very vocally here), which I support. Doesn't mean you'll get your way though. As I have said before and will say again - greater good.

To all of you who actively remove Fluoride from your drinking water and avoid the use of Fluoridated toothpaste etc......
I hope you never have the pleasure of seeing a 2 year old child screaming in pain at your local hospital emergency department with a dental abcess on a grossly decayed tooth that requires urgent extraction under general anesthesia. When you've seen a few hundred of them, you might start thinking twice about the benefits of Fluoride.

Over and Out.


----------



## wayneL (17 December 2007)

BraceFace said:


> To all of you who actively remove Fluoride from your drinking water and avoid the use of Fluoridated toothpaste etc......
> I hope you never have the pleasure of seeing a 2 year old child screaming in pain at your local hospital emergency department with a dental abcess on a grossly decayed tooth that requires urgent extraction under general anesthesia. When you've seen a few hundred of them, you might start thinking twice about the benefits of Fluoride.
> 
> Over and Out.



Now hang on just a doggone minute! 

After all the talk of science etc, you resort to an emotive argument that is quite possibly a non sequitur? Lets have some substantiation and some link between non-fluoridation and tooth abscesses in two year olds, ruling out other factors.

As the graph of fluoridated and non-fluoridated nations posted earlier suggests, there are other factors at play other than fluoride.

On another matter, If you have been threatened on this forum, please let one of the mods know immediately who the perpetrator of this threat is.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 December 2007)

BraceFace said:


> ...a 2 year old child screaming in pain at your local hospital emergency department with a dental abcess on a grossly decayed tooth that requires urgent extraction under general anesthesia. When you've seen a few hundred of them, you might start thinking twice about the benefits of Fluoride.



probably due to mothers giving infant kids bottled sugar water (fruit "juice") when they go to sleep, and the slow top-up trickle of juice gives their teeth a brilliant acid wash for flaming hours

like
 lol
I'm not sure that fluoride is the only parameter in this equation is it? 

(and PS - even fluoride won't help there)


----------



## Tysonboss1 (17 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Thanks, Wayne, at least for a suggestion.  Will look into it.
> 
> As Wayne has said, the issue is not dental health.  If people want to use fluoride to protect their teeth they can easily add it themselves.  It is not necessary to mass medicate the whole population so that those of us who cannot drink fluoridated water are deprived of a basic need.
> Also it seems pretty stupid to water our gardens and flush our toilets with fluoride.





Every State in Australia except queensland already has flouride in the water,... 

Putting floride in the water is the best way to make sure it gets to everyone,... rich and poor.

I grew up in brisbane but now live in sydney and I think it's a great idea,...

Even if there are a few people who can't have floride I think the benefit to the rest of the population will out way the inconvience to the few, 

and yes your probally right we shouldn't be flushing our toilet or watering our lawn with any drinking water at all not just floride added drinking water.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (17 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Knobby, this doesn't constitute a scientific study.  I spent one month in an area where there is fluoride in the water.  My teeth at the end of that time were so brown with fluorosis that they looked rotten.  Not just a "faint, almost indiscernible mottling" as the pro fluoride lobby suggests, but dark, solid brown.  Had to get them all veneered.
> 
> I had no idea what had happened until I went to the dentist on arriving home and he immediately deduced that I had been drinking fluoridated water.
> 
> ...




I think it's better for 1 person to have to remove the floride than 100,000 of us have to worry about adding it our selves,.... not to mention the number of kids who will miss out.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (17 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Just a couple of further points:  reverse osmosis filtration, I'm told by the manufacturers, discards up to four parts of water for every drinkable part it produces.  One unit reduces this to two for one.
> So there is a certain irony in this in view of governments urging us to reduce our water use.
> About 1% of water is used for drinking.
> That's a lot of fluoride on the cabbage patch and down the toilet.





I don't know what sort of crazy setups they are talking about,...

yes reverse osmosis machines do require an amount of water be used to back flush the system,.. to flush out all the impurities that in effect have been filtered out of your water, but nowhere near the amount of water gets used as you are saying, epspecially because the water is already clean.

I was a machine operater on a reverse osmosis machine that was used to turn salt water from a dirty mangrove river into drinking water for locals and my machine used 400L of water on the backflush cycle every 12,000L of drinking water produced.


----------



## Whiskers (17 December 2007)

BraceFace said:


> Well hasn't this thread turned into quite a slanging match.
> 
> I chose to sit out for a while after being threatened with physical violence by one member, labelled an A Hole by another and then given the bird by Mr Whiskers. I've had my own posts on other threads deleted for far less.
> 
> ...




So... you LIKE a bit of slanging mixed with humour, when it supports your position.



> AndyKM - Irritable Bowel Syndrome is not caused by Fluoride in the concentrations added to drinking water. If it was, we'd all be farting like the proverbial and slugging down peppermint oil like i's going out of fashion. High concentrations of self-ingested Flouride or toxic doses of Fluoride from environmental pollutants are a whole different health issue and are a moot point in this discussion.




Braceface, you protest at others making generalised unscientific statements, but you do the same. The one thing that I find in the pro fluoride arguement is they don't mention fluoride is becoming an increasing pollutant in our enviornment and varies higher in communities near the many types of industry that emit fluoride pollutants. It is only logical that the amount added to the water supply will be sufficient to cause overdoses in those areas, notwithstanding that some people may have lower tolerance levels of which IBS is an early symptom.



> Kimosabi - push your tonics and therapies elsewhere mate. This thread is about Fluoride, it's not a Conventional medicine Vs Alternative Medicine debate. It's basically a thread about public choice,




Public choice... so kimosabi is not allowed the choice to express alternatives to adding more fluoride into our food chain that is increasingly being contaminated by fluoride etc.




> Julia - I final word to you.
> We are bound by a professional ethical code to DO NO HARM and that should not be overlooked. .




Ethical code to DO NO HARM.



> Currently, there is much more scientific support for the use of Fluoride in drinking water than against it. That is not my opinion, that's just how it is my friend (for the moment at least)




By your own admission the issue of DO NO HARM is very very far from unamious. Shouldn't this alone prompt you to err on the side of caution and at least instigate a research project by independant researchers that all sides can agree to accept. 



> Minority groups and people with certain health conditions may not like this, but you have a right to protest (as you have very vocally here), which I support. Doesn't mean you'll get your way though. As I have said before and will say again - greater good.




For me your professional ethical code of DO NO HARM does not reconcile with your attitude of 'people with certain health conditions that are adversely affected by adding fluoride just have to wear it for the greater good', especially since your opinion is not even a mojority in world terms, let alone clear cut.

But then this,


> To all of you who actively remove Fluoride from your drinking water and avoid the use of Fluoridated toothpaste etc......
> I hope you never have the pleasure of seeing a 2 year old child screaming in pain at your local hospital emergency department with a dental abcess on a grossly decayed tooth that requires urgent extraction under general anesthesia. When you've seen a few hundred of them, you might start thinking twice about the benefits of Fluoride.




absolutely dispells any notion of a 'professional' let alone 'ethical' opinion. 

What an extraudinary emotional, unscientific distortion of the facts to promote an opinion.

I have seen communities in africa who have beaming white teeth, adults and children alike. They don't have fluoridated water... but they don't have processed foods high in sugars either. Isn't it also reported in dentistry literature that the commercial production of sugar (I think about the 1700's) to add to our diet was a turning point in dental health!



> Over and Out.



And to finish on this note is synomonous with emotional brat tantrum syndrome, picKing up his toys and going to play somewhere else.

*Come on Braceface, get your act together and address the issues in a professional and ethical manner.* 



Whiskers said:


> Braceface, I am having a bit of trouble with the credability of your arguement.
> 
> You say you have a strong scientific opinion and I can't let some of the flase and misleading claims go by without comment. Hmmm.
> 
> ...


----------



## BraceFace (17 December 2007)

Whiskers said:


> So... you LIKE a bit of slanging mixed with humour, when it supports your position.
> 
> I have seen communities in africa who have beaming white teeth, adults and children alike. They don't have fluoridated water... but they don't have processed foods high in sugars either. Isn't it also reported in dentistry literature that the commercial production of sugar (I think about the 1700's) to add to our diet was a turning point in dental health!
> 
> ...





Whiskers, you are right, some of my comments are fairly broad statements. The thing is, and this is the essence of my last "emotional brat tantrum syndrome" comment, is that I have a significant other life outside my nom-de-plume Braceface. As it is, this is the most times I have ever posted on any internet forum in my life in such a short period. Man, I could be doing much more enjoyable and productive things than sticking my neck out to support good public health policy. And this is what I am planning on doing - I've said my 20c worth, now someone else can have their turn.
I'm going to go home to my family.....

Whiskers, I have done the study and I have put in the hard yards to earn my qualification and if necessary, I could submit to you hundred's if not thousands of scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journal's that support the use of fluoride in the drinking water. Here's the thing though, if I actually had the time (which I don't) or the inclination (which I also don't) I wouldn't be pushing the pro-fluoridation idea on an Australian Shares forum.I would be promoting the cause to people who might actually be able to do something about it.

As I have stated before, I am not a lobbbyist, I just work at the coalface of the dental health industry, and I see, almost every day, the benefits of fluoride to dental health. That's how I form my educated OPINION.That and many years of tertiary training. I'm not sure how you form your opinion - perhaps you would like to state your qualifications for the record.

Mate, if you didn't like me bringing a human side to the discussion with my very last comments - tough. That is the real world mate. The decisions our governments make also affect the people who have no say - children. The decision to fluoridate the water supply is good for children's dental health and by default good for you and me as taxpayers (I assume you have a job)

And don't even try to compare African children with almost zero refined carbohydrate in their diet to children in "western" societies who are fed sugar from day one. All you are doing is showing your ignorance about the disease process of dental caries and the role fluoride plays in disease prevention.

You want lecture to me about being ethical and professional!?
Remember this from your earlier post #114........
:321:

You crack me up.


----------



## chops_a_must (17 December 2007)

The study out today should end the debate.

Children's tooth decay is worst in Queensland, and decay in general is also very bad in Bunbury and Busselton where there is no fluoride.

End of story.


----------



## wayneL (17 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> The study out today should end the debate.
> 
> Children's tooth decay is worst in Queensland, and decay in general is also very bad in Bunbury and Busselton where there is no fluoride.
> 
> End of story.



link?


----------



## chops_a_must (17 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> link?




Yup.



> Fluoridated water puts Australia's children in top 10 in world dental health
> 
> Monday, 17 December 2007
> 
> ...




http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news23461.html


----------



## Whiskers (17 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> link?




Seconded!

Come on *Chops*, you purport to be a professional. Don't you remember from uni that any quotes or assertions of fact from other peoples work should be referenced.

You should know better than making an all encompassing statement like "The study out today should end the debate"... without even referencing the study. 

Until you can layout all the material from this study for scrutiny and cross examination, this has more flavour of political propoganda than professionalism. You aren't a member of a political party, are you?

I want to know:

who sponsored the 'study' 
who conducted it 
what were the all important terms of reference, and last but not least 
what raw stastictics and methodology was used to reach the results quoted.


----------



## wayneL (17 December 2007)

Whiskers said:


> I want to know:
> 
> who sponsored the 'study'
> who conducted it
> ...



'zackley.

I've read hundreds of these things in another field (equine exercise physiology). Most were total sh!te on the above basis.


----------



## ajoz (17 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> The number of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth in 12-year-olds was highest for the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland (which does not currently have state-wide fluoridation) and Tasmania, and lowest for South Australia and the Northern Territory.




The Australian Capital Territory has fluoride in their water, so how can they then have the highest incidence of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth in 12-year-olds? As Pauline Hanson would say, please explain.



> Children in Australia have better oral health than children in most other countries, due largely to fluoridated water, according to new research conducted at the University of Adelaide.




What 'most other countries' are being talked about here? As most European countries have no fluoride in their water and have at least equal if not better DMFT. Also the reduction in DMFT in those countries seems to show that they initially had a greater problem than Australia to start off with, so one would then wander what they did different to Australia that they achieved such  great results.


----------



## chops_a_must (18 December 2007)

Whiskers said:


> Seconded!
> 
> Come on *Chops*, you purport to be a professional. Don't you remember from uni that any quotes or assertions of fact from other peoples work should be referenced.
> 
> ...




Wtf?

It's done by a government body.

The links for all the important people are in the article.

I'm sure you can get that yourself if you ask, and if you have the inclination to look, considering you seem to care about it so much.

Given it was done within a government body, I don't think you'll have a problem getting those.

I wouldn't have thought I would need to spell it out considering it was very widely reported.

These studies are peer reviewed and scrutinised before publication.

Never the less. Here is where the original survey is, what looks to be the basis of this report:

http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/

Plus a tonne of other articles and specific statistics.


----------



## Sprinter79 (18 December 2007)

Man, there's so many precious people in this thread.

If you don't want fluoride in your drinking water, filter it, or drink bottled water. Simple. (just recycle all those plastic bottles)

As the Dalai Lama says: "If there is a way to overcome the suffering, then there is no need to worry; if there is no way to overcome the suffering, then there is no use in worrying."


----------



## Whiskers (18 December 2007)

BraceFace said:


> Whiskers, you are right, some of my comments are fairly broad statements. The thing is, and this is the essence of my last "emotional brat tantrum syndrome" comment, is that I have a significant other life outside my nom-de-plume Braceface.




Then wouldn't it be much quicker and to the point if you just addressed the points I raised.



> Whiskers, I have done the study and I have put in the hard yards to earn my qualification ...
> 
> As I have stated before, I am not a lobbbyist, I just work at the coalface of the dental health industry, and I see, almost every day, the benefits of fluoride to dental health. That's how I form my educated OPINION.That and many years of tertiary training. I'm not sure how you form your opinion - perhaps you would like to state your qualifications for the record.




Well, I,m not one to brag, cos I'm sure there are many with more and better qualifications on this forum than I, but if it pleases you...

I never failed a subject at school, sorry I think I failed 1 in high school when I lost most of the term in hospital, but passed everything else, even won a scholarship from high school. Always  seemed to be appointed team captain, class captain, house captain, or something else captain, started in Scouts in primary school and appointed patrol leader from outset, later group leader. 

Worked as civil construction supervisor in private enterprise and local government for awhile with experience among other things, in town water processing plants and reticulation systems.

Have a Bachelor of Business degree majoring in accounting and law... I guess it's the legal cross examination, substantiation and auditing requirements that you are having trouble with... and...

To whom these letters may come
Greetings​​This certifies that 
'Whiskers'​In Recognition of Outstanding Scholastic Achievement and Excellence has 
been granted membership of the Golden Key International Honour Society 
and is hereby granted all the Rights, Honours, and Priviliges 
pertaining to the Society.​:​
I have held agricultural chemical user accredetation (NSCA), accredeted plant breeder and seed producer (QDPI), supervised and collaberated with TAFE lectures to provide field training and assessement for Horticultural traineeships and field trips for Associate Diploma of Applied Science (Horticulture) students a number of times.

I have served a number of years as president and treasurer of various industry and community organisations.

I have had intensive training and accreditation as a facilitator in group facilitation conflict resolution.

I own and operate two business ABN's, one sole trader, the other a propietry company and descretionary trust which I have operated for many years. 

Geses, if I tell you more you will know what size joks I take and which toes have tinea. 

OK, am I high enough up the socioeconomic ladder and educated enough, experienced enough, bright enough for you to give me a concise, as much technical jargon as you like, response to my earlier questions like a professional now?


----------



## wayneL (18 December 2007)

Anyhow, picking up the theme from Sprinter:

Reverse osmosis is one way, another is to have install a 500 gallon rainwater tank and use that exclusively for drinking. Takes hardly any room, one rain fills it and it and that lasts ages.

You can put a simple particle filter on if worried about birdy doodoos and dust etc.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (18 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Busselton where there is no fluoride.
> 
> End of story.




Busselton's water tastes pretty damn nice though, supplied by the local water board which has absolutely nothing to do with the state water authority. 
Not sure how many large towns have there own water board in west oz, can't be many.

Coming from a complete ignoramus on the pro's/cons of insitu fluoride addition to scheme water................. I'm not into Gov's adding anything adhoc to the food chain,wouldn't trust there research as far as I could kick it !.


----------



## Whiskers (18 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> Anyhow, picking up the theme from Sprinter:
> 
> Reverse osmosis is one way, another is to have install a 500 gallon rainwater tank and use that exclusively for drinking. Takes hardly any room, one rain fills it and it and that lasts ages.
> 
> You can put a simple particle filter on if worried about birdy doodoos and dust etc.




Rain water tanks is what I have grown up with and still have. I didn't have any extraudinary trouble with teeth decay. My kids, left home now, but as far as I know still have all their teeth without fluoridation. 

My gripe is I was considering buying a place on the coast (in a town water supply area) to retire into, but now having second thoughts... might build new in rural area again.

Also, my elderly mum now lives in the city and is diagnosed allergic to a couple of things including fluoride and has been discussing the option of a rain water tank. She is also concerned that frequent bathing in it will cause a reaction. But like Julia and others she is cranky that the so called minority who are allergic to fluoride should have to suffer the inconvience and expense of making other arrangements. 



Sprinter79 said:


> Man, there's so many precious people in this thread.
> 
> If you don't want fluoride in your drinking water, filter it, or drink bottled water. Simple. (just recycle all those plastic bottles)




Sprinter, I guess you are talking a bit tongue-in-cheek here, but seriously though, people are precious. 

For me the problem is that our society is becoming overconsumist (if that is a word) continually pushing more consumption of everything now including fluoride to allegedly fix a health problem that is primiarly caused by over consumption of processed foods particularly sugars. The medical archives record the relationship of increasing teeth decay with the commercialisation of sugar cane and beet crops to produce sugars to add to the diet, I think from about the 1700's.

Surely educating those people who start feeding their babies with high sugar drinks to not give their babies refined sugars and for the general population to consume less food, particularly sugars, is a more logical and effective way of maintaining better dental and overall health.

The problem is that Governments and business need as much consumption as they can get to improve their bottom line. Hence the flawed idealology to continually consume more things to rectify problems and side effects of other consumption, when often one can cure the problem by removing the (consumed) cause better than trying to limit the effects by consuming something different. 

Saliva is our natural protection against tooth decay. Many medications including from memory, antihistamines, anti-anxiety medications and blood pressure medications are a few that come to mind at this hour, actually also reduce salivation as a side effect, consequently reducing our natural defence against decay.

Fluoride has its side effects also as acknowledged by an earlier post about fluoride poisoning by an american medical site. 

One thing that I so far cannot find any evidence of is the relationship between the alleged safe amount of fluoridation in the water supply and the variable amount of additional enviornmental fluoride pollution (natural fluoride as some term it) in areas of certain industries that pollute it. Nobody wants to talk about the two in the same conversation. Especially on the QLD gov site I could find no mention of fluoride as an enviormental pollutant, but plenty of talk of fluoride as being 'natural' 'occurring everywhere' and 'good' for us. 

One of the things that fluoride does is also reduce ones amount of salivation. It also alters the behaviour of enzymes and strongly attracts calcium disturbing the behaviour of blood circulation and deposition of calcium in bones and the brain tissues.

I guess the point is that fluoride is a nonbiodegradable poison that accumulates in the body, soil, fruit and veg, everything the fluoridated water comes in contact with. The pro fluoridation argument is that 1 ppm fluoride is safe to consume. But everytime you use it to water your veg garden the concentration builds up in those fruit and veg as well as on the surface. Fluoride contamination of rural properties accumulates in the crops and livestock that we use. Fluoride accumulation up to 3ppm was recorded on californian crops for export to the EC. The produce was being rejected and I understand that californian farmers have since undertaken to eliminate all and anything that contributes to fluoride deposition in their enviornment.

Given that our gov still says personal hygene is the best defence against tooth decay and if you are in the majority of the population who are responsible about their dental health, why would you want a dubious mass medication chemical in your water supply at all, that is in effect only going to benifit (allegedly) only the few who don't keep good dental hygene.

The majority are not going to get any benifit at all unless you lower your personal dental hygene standards so the mass medication will allegedly act as a safety net.  

Ignoring the safety aspects for a moment, just think of the economics. Does it really stack up. Would you pay to treat 100% of the water when only about 1% or less of it is used for drinking and only a fraction of that 1% is in the poor dental hygene catagory. Wouldn't it be far better targeted to provide fluoridated water bottles for the target lower socioeconomic areas or for anyone that wanted it?


----------



## Sprinter79 (18 December 2007)

I wouldn't say the majority of people fit into the 'responsible about their dental health' category. 

Once again, it is becoming more complicated than it needs to be. If you don't want fluoride in the water, use bottled water, or filter it. 

For example, I am lactose intolerant. Most foods in our western diets have lactose in them, even some medicines, so I have to be careful what I consume. Therefore, I actively seek out foods which don't contain lactose. Simple. (Not quite the same, but an example none the less)

There are solutions, so there is no need to cry over spilt milk (or water in this instance).


----------



## Whiskers (18 December 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> I wouldn't say the majority of people fit into the 'responsible about their dental health' category.
> 
> Once again, it is becoming more complicated than it needs to be. If you don't want fluoride in the water, use bottled water, or filter it.
> 
> ...




Sprinter, you seem quite intelligent, can communicate and articulate yourself well in a pleasant manner.

So I hope you don't mind a bit of a personality observation. I note somewhat of a contradiction in your logic... well more of a behavoural style. 

You use the phrase _becoming more complicated than it needs to be_ quite often. But in reference to things that are well beyound your control and influence you don't seem to object to them getting more complicated, eg processed foods with more additives and now processed water supplies with more fluoride. 

Some of the many complications in life obviously affect you, but your behavioural style seems to be somewhat amiable in that you tend to avoid dealing with these material complications and go along with the group opinion rather than argue, because relationships are important for you and you just want to smooth over conflicts to try to keep cohesian in your community. 

To that end you accept having to work harder to manage your choices (food types) as a simple solution.

My late father was quite amiable and largely blase about the safety of toxic substances in the evviornment, accepting assurances that everything was safe. He died a premature death from an agressive abdominal cancer, not too unlike the asbestos victims and James Hardie.

I'm sorry to hear about your Lactose intolerance. Not sure whether you have the primary or secondary form, but there are estimates from 5% to 10% of Australians suffer, mostly from Secondary Lactose intolerance. The percentages are much higher in Aisian, Hispanic, African and Aboriginal ancestry. The problem is becoming more endemic as a consequence of caucsian culture imposing and promoting an excessively high consumption of refined foods for commercial reasons onto other cultures where it is not natural.

Given the following information, can you and all these people just in this one health catagory, afford to be blase about the consumption of fluoride! 

Is the cost of keeping the peace and not rocking the boat, worth your health and longevity? 



> Anything that damages the gut lining, even subtly, can cause secondary lactose intolerance. The enzyme lactase is produced in the very tips of folds of the intestine, and anything that causes damage to the gut may wipe off these tips and reduce the enzyme production
> http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/lactose.html






> *Pathophysiology:* Fluoride has several mechanisms of toxicity. Ingested fluoride initially acts locally on the intestinal mucosa. It can form hydrofluoric acid in the stomach, which leads to GI irritation or corrosive effects. Following ingestion, the GI tract is the earliest and most commonly affected organ system.
> 
> Once absorbed, fluoride binds calcium ions and may lead to hypocalcemia. Fluoride has direct cytotoxic effects and interferes with a number of enzyme systems; it disrupts oxidative phosphorylation, glycolysis, coagulation, and neurotransmission (by binding calcium).
> http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic181.htm


----------



## Sprinter79 (18 December 2007)

Whiskers, it would probably interest you to know that I am a union delegate and a Govt Inspector, so I have no trouble sticking my head above the parapet, and have done on many occasion often to my own detriment for the 'greater good' of my electorate, or those people who's health and safety I look after.

Some things are worth fighting for and others are not, the key is in finding which ones are REALLY worth your time. 

As I've said previously, and I draw heavily on the philosophy he promotes, the Dalai Lama suggests "If there is a way to overcome the suffering, then there is no need to worry; if there is no way to overcome the suffering, then there is no use in worrying."

For the minority that are suffering because of fluoride in the water, there are solutions, hence there is no need to worry, just go and do them.

Things are as simple as you want them to be. But, at the same time, things can be as complicated as you let them be.


----------



## hugh44 (18 December 2007)

I have been following this debate with some interest and amusement.

I find that I am continually frustrated by the minority groups in our society.  If the majority benefit from fluoride then in my opinion LET THERE BE FLUORIDE!!

Buy the drops or tablets or whatever else you need to take the fluoride out and get on with more important things.  

Don't get hung up on the little things ...


----------



## Sprinter79 (18 December 2007)

For the record, here are some pretty decent solutions at reasonable prices:

http://www.filterwizard.com.au/filters_reverse_osmosis.asp    $550 delivered

http://www.filterwizard.com.au/filters_reverse_osmosis_wall_mount.asp   $180 delivered


----------



## Kimosabi (18 December 2007)

Here we go, time to knock this little puppy out of the Ballpark...

VIDEO: The Flouride Deception ==> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2886269353175462948&hl=en-GB

Flouride Action Network ==> http://www.fluoridealert.org/

Enjoy your industrial waste...


----------



## Whiskers (19 December 2007)

*Sprinter*, I'm sorry that you idolise a pacifist, an amiable in excess.

I'm sorry that you are frustrated and stuck in your social style and don't recognise the implications of that, one of which is intolerence of minority groups and individual rights. 

It seems that you have had some sort of awful experience that has caused you to diminish ones empathy for individual rights in favour of the greater good. I could go on for ages about profiling people by the words and phrases they use, but you are not interested in all that detail and information.

If you don't ask the right question you will never find the answer and never truely understand... you don't know what you don't know. 

Good luck with your lactose intolerance and I hope you come to peace with yourself.

*Hugh*, I'm also sorry that you get frustrated and unable to engage in dialogue and default to debate.

It is unfortunate that you also cannot tolerate dissent and trivialise as 'little things' the discomfort, inconvience and expense of people who need or want to avoid adding an unnecessary carcenegic poison to our system.

What can be gleaned from both of you is that you have a strong emotional attachment to your beliefs and a burning desire to influence people, hence you couldn't resist makeing a profound statement on this thread rather than engage in inquisitive dialogue.

Contrary to your belief system, that is a behavoural weakness. It predisposes you to manipulation by your emotions.

Again it is a selfawareness issue that will come to you when you are ready.


----------



## Sprinter79 (19 December 2007)

Wow Whiskers, you should go on Oprah or some **** :

Why are you sorry that I 'idolise a pacifist'? I don't recall saying that I idolise him, just that I draw heavily on the Buddist philosophy. 

Frustrated and stuck? Please explain.... actually don't. Your amateurish psych is almost as bad as Kimosabi's snake oil peddling. At least you're not saying that teeth can grow back.

I'm not going to take the bait on the other stuff, as it doesn't relate to the topic at hand. 

NB- I don't think it is appropriate to make assumptions, and publish them in this way, on people's personality based on what they write on a forum. With your training in conflict resolution, you should know that you can't make a full assessment in this way.


----------



## Whiskers (19 December 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> NB- I don't think it is appropriate to make assumptions, and publish them in this way, on people's personality based on what they write on a forum. With your training in conflict resolution, you should know that you can't make a full assessment in this way.




I'm glad you mentioned conflict resolution, sprinter.

"...you should know that you can't make a full assessment in this way" examplifies what I am trying to express to you. You have tendency to view and an inclination to impatiently want to get to the end result. Hence your unwillingness to engage in dialogue and work through details.

If you claim the right to make statements of fact about fluoride and insist that minorities should essentially shut up and do as they are told, you are fair game to identify your behavioural style and assess your motivations. 

It is noted that you tend to prefer debate to try to browbeat your opinion of fluoride across as opposed to dialogue which is necessary for conflict resolution.



> I'm not going to take the bait on the other stuff, as it doesn't relate to the topic at hand.



You might be surprised.

Debate is oppositional. Winning is the goal.
Dialogue is collaborative. Finding common ground is the goal.

As for my style of inquisition... the first rule of conflict resolution is to control loud and domineering people so they don't control the floor to impose their will. How that is achieved is a matter of individual assessement.

At this stage it is probably approperiate to lay down the rules of the problem solving approach to conflict resolution. (I didn't make up these rules. They are pretty standard counselling criteria)


Acknowledge there is a conflict.

Identify and acknowledge each partys concerns and goals.

Identify alternative solutions and their consequences for each party.

Select the alternative that best meets the needs, concerns and goals of each party.

Implementing the alternative selected and evaluate the results.
The formula is assertion + cooperation = problem solving.

If you would like to play by the rules we can get down to the business of finding a solution to the fluoride issue.


----------



## hugh44 (19 December 2007)

Okay ... I have stopped laughing ... Whiskers you can try and "glean" whatever you like from my post, you can also try to conduct a psychological profile from my 4 or 5 line post.  You go right ahead!!  

Come on ... you are positing on a share trading forum you obviously have money, go and buy what you need.  There are a lot of people out there that couldn't afford the dentist bills, so the fluoride will benefit them.  

While you are out buying your new filtration system why don't you go and have a lovely relaxing massage.


----------



## moneymajix (19 December 2007)

Martin Sheen says 

*Fluoridation "Hard to Swallow"*
Wednesday, November 07, 2007 


It is with deep concern that this city of Malibu, founded on ecologically sound principles, extending even to marine wildlife, should be subject to the upcoming fluoridation of its water supply. Announced casually in a notice in last month's water bill, it strikes us as a violation of assumed democratic process. Within our health-oriented community, choice is and has always been paramount.

To date, no manufacturer of the actual hydrofluosilicic acid to be used has stated that their specific product is effective at reducing tooth decay when swallowed, or safe for all infants, children and the elderly. The public should be able to view actual dated product review documents that prove the manufacturer has earned certification, as California law requires.

Is it not obvious to all that $20 million could *much more effectively be spent on nutrition, oral health education and toothbrushes?* These funds could be used for a less toxic, more salutary solution. Caries are caused by poor nutrition and poor oral hygiene, not lack of hydrofluosilicic acid, containing lead and arsenic and other carcinogenic and mutagenic substances).

Please note the recent recall of cold medicines and other infant and children's medications. This, alone, should put us on notice about what we allow corporate decisions to shove down our throats and those of our children. We are not lab rats and reject any attempt to be treated as such'

Martin and Janet Sheen 


http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2007/11/07/editorial/letters/letter4.txt


----------



## moneymajix (19 December 2007)

Someone said don't get caught up on small things. Is having your child's IQ and health detrimentally impacted trivial?


*Second Thoughts About Fluoride
by Dan Fagin. 
Scientific American, January 2008, pages 74–81*

*Excerpts *


Page 75: KEY CONCEPTS

• Researchers are intensifying their scrutiny of fluoride, which is added to most public water systems in the U.S. Some recent studies suggest that overconsumption of fluoride can raise the* risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland. *

• A 2006 report by a committee of the National Research Council recommended that the federal government lower its current limit for fluoride in drinking water because of health risks to both children and adults

Page 75: Most fluoridated water contains much less fluoride than the EPA limit, but the situation is worrisome because there is so much uncertainty over how much additional fluoride we ingest from food, beverages and dental products. What is more, the NRC panel noted that fluoride may also trigger more serious health problems, including bone cancer and damage to the brain and thyroid gland. Although these effects are still unproved, the panel argued that they deserve further study. 

Page 75: TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING: *Fluoride is in many foods, beverages and dental products. The ubiquity of the cavity-fighting chemical can result in overconsumption, particularly among young children.* 

Page 78: Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift in the country where the practice began. 

Page 79: But enamel fluorosis, except in the severest cases, has no health impact beyond lowered self-esteem: the tooth marks are unattractive and do not go away (although there are masking treatments). The much more important question is whether fluoride’s effects extend beyond altering the biochemistry of tooth enamel formation. Says longtime fluoride researcher Pamela DenBesten of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Dentistry: “We certainly can see that fluoride impacts the way proteins interact with mineralized tissue, so what effect is it having elsewhere at the cellular level? Fluoride is very powerful, and it needs to be treated respectfully.”

Page 80: Clashes over the possible neurological effects of fluoride have been just as intense. Phyllis Mullenix, then at the Forsyth Institute in Boston, set off a firestorm in the early 1990s when she reported that experiments on lab rats showed that sodium fluoride can accumulate in brain tissue and affect animal behavior. Prenatal exposures, she reported, correlated with hyperactivity in young rats, especially males, whereas exposures after birth had the opposite effect, turning female rats into what Mullenix later described as “couch potatoes.” Although her research was eventually published in Neurotoxicology and Teratology, it was attacked by other scientists who said that her methodology was flawed and that she had used unrealistically high dosages. Since then, however,* a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ,* and research has also suggested a possible mechanism: the formation of aluminum fluoride complexes—small inorganic molecules that mimic the structure of phosphates and thus influence enzyme activity in the brain. There is also some evidence that the silicofluorides used in water fluoridation may enhance the uptake of lead into the brain. 

Page 80: The NRC committee concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid—the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism. Although researchers do not know how fluoride consumption can influence the thyroid, the effects appear to be strongly influenced by diet and genetics. Says John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee: “The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored.” 

Page 80-81: “What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look,” Doull says. “In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over.  But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”

Page 81: Opponents of fluoridation, meanwhile, have been emboldened by the NRC report. “What the committee did was very, very important, because it’s the first time a truly balanced panel has looked at this and raised important questions,” says Paul Connett, a chemistry professor at St. Lawrence University and the executive director of the Fluoride Action Network, one of the most active antifluoridation groups world-wide. “I absolutely believe it’s a scientific turning point because now everything’s on the table.  *Fluoride is the most consumed drug in the U.S., and it’s time we talked about it.” *

Page 80: A FLUORIDE DIET 
The optimal range for daily intake of fluoride—the level that maximizes protection against tooth decay but minimizes other risks— is generally considered to be 0.05 to 0.07 milligram for each kilogram of body weight. Consuming foods and beverages with large amounts of fluoride can put a diet above this range. Below are typical trace levels of fluoride, measured in parts per million (ppm),  found in foods and drinks tested at the University of Iowa College of Dentistry. 

etc ...


http://www.flouridealert.org/sc.am.jan.2008.html


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And, 

*In November, 2006, the respected medical journal Lancet described Fluoride as an 'emerging neurotoxic substance' due to evidence linking flouride to lower IQs in children, and brain damage in animals.*


----------



## BraceFace (19 December 2007)

moneymajix said:


> Martin Sheen says
> 
> *Fluoridation "Hard to Swallow"*
> Wednesday, November 07, 2007
> ...





Well, how misguided am I? 
If Martin says that it is bad, then bugger me, it must be.
I wonder what Tom Cruise thinks.


----------



## moneymajix (19 December 2007)

Hey Brace

I thought you would relate to "authority figures"!


----------



## professor_frink (19 December 2007)

Julia,
sorry to hear about the problems you've had with your teeth.

Apart from that, this has been one of the funniest threads I've read in ages


----------



## Sprinter79 (19 December 2007)

Whiskers, if you'll refer back to my post at #142 and my posts following that before the thread degenerated, you will find that I've provided information for each of those so called 'rules' (except number 5- Implementation and evaluation).


----------



## Whiskers (19 December 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> Whiskers, if you'll refer back to my post at #142 and my posts following that before the thread degenerated, you will find that I've provided information for each of those so called 'rules' (except number 5- Implementation and evaluation).




If you don't recognise the legitimacy of these rules... perhaps you can quote what you consider as better rules for counselling or conflict resolution.

Yes, it's the 'evaluation' part that is the BIG problem for the fluoride lobby.

But let's back track a bit.


*Acknowledge there is a conflict*.    Ok


*Identify and acknowledge each party's concerns and goals*.    Ok... well sort of...you tend to trivialise them.


*Identify alternative solutions and their consequences for each party*.    You recognise part of the solution, filtration, but you fail to recognise the financial cost as a burden. Why don't you propose that anyone who wants to filter out the fluoride be given a free filter.


*Select the alternative that best meets the needs, concerns and goals of each party*.    Pay for the filtration system for those who want it is a reasonable compromise. Just telling them to go and buy one does not acknowledge 2 and 3. You are not giving any ground at all to defray their needs -allergic reactions, concerns - far from unamious safety verdict, goals - to avoid fluoride until the issue is proven beyound a reasonable doubt.


*Implementing the alternative selected and evaluate the results*.    For people who are cocerned that they have been misled by the pro fluoride lobby into implementing a trial, where is the evaluation of the results. Please provide anything in the fluoride lobby where they will accept any research that disagrees with their goal and gives people the option to opt out of the fluoridation process if they have new needs, concerns or goals to do so. 

Just declaring it is for the 'greater good' totally dismisses any notion of individual concerns and rights and is completely undemocratic.


----------



## Whiskers (19 December 2007)

hugh44 said:


> Okay ... I have stopped laughing ... Whiskers you can try and "glean" whatever you like from my post, you can also try to conduct a psychological profile from my 4 or 5 line post.  You go right ahead!!
> 
> Come on ... you are positing on a share trading forum you obviously have money, go and buy what you need.  There are a lot of people out there that couldn't afford the dentist bills, so the fluoride will benefit them.
> 
> While you are out buying your new filtration system why don't you go and have a lovely relaxing massage.




Thanks Hugh.

You continue to display sly domineering behaviour under the guise of  pleasent appearance )) to try to manipulate people. I think the style is akin to con-artist.

Why don't you abide by the 'rules' if you are truely interested in solving the problem.

Otherwise I will call you as I see you at the moment... no doubt a pro fluoride advocate who trivialises peoples concerns trying to CON them into appeasement.


----------



## Whiskers (19 December 2007)

BraceFace said:


> Well, how misguided am I?
> If Martin says that it is bad, then bugger me, it must be.
> I wonder what Tom Cruise thinks.




I'm sorry to see that you also trivialise ordinary peoples concerns.

Pretty emotional sort of a guy, probably a bit short tempered too.

Not very becoming of a professional. 

What do you do when people come into your surgery wanting a check-up and you tell them, I think you need these two pulled out. Do they get a chance to go away and think about it or do you mock them in the chair and do it anyway?

Would you like to engage in some counselling and conflict resolution?


----------



## Sprinter79 (19 December 2007)

Whiskers, just because I haven't written something down on the forum doesn't mean that I have failed to recognise, acknowledge, comprehend  etc, it just means that I haven't written it down. That is why doing any kind of psych profiling, or even conflict resolution, in this way is seriously flawed. It is best done face to face.

For the record, I don't think subsidising fluoride filtration systems is a good use of public money, just because I didn't write words to that effect, doesn't mean I hadn't previously considered it.

In a democracy, majority rules. Didn't we just have an election?

I wonder Whiskers, if I was of the same opinion as you, would you be going to all this trouble?


----------



## BraceFace (19 December 2007)

Whiskers said:


> I'm sorry to see that you also trivialise ordinary peoples concerns.
> 
> 
> Would you like to engage in some counselling and conflict resolution?




No thanks Sigmund.
You've already given me enough free personality evaluation on this thread.
You're not a Scientologist by any chance are you.

Seriously Whiskers, you need to get out more. The amount of time you spend on this forum psychoanalysing anyone with a contrary opinion to yours is quite amazing.
Get out from behind the computer and go get some sun on your back or go and give your kids a hug.
Don't forget to slip slop slap (not your kids).


----------



## Whiskers (19 December 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> Whiskers, just because I haven't written something down on the forum doesn't mean that I have failed to recognise, acknowledge, comprehend  etc, it just means that I haven't written it down. That is why doing any kind of psych profiling, or even conflict resolution, in this way is seriously flawed. It is best done face to face.




Best done face to face... but there is plenty of conflict resolution (counselling) done over the phone and internet. Since it is unpractical for us to get face to face isn't it better to do the best we can by other means than not do anything at all. I'm sure you make a few phone calls and emails at work to resolve problems rather than meeting everyone face to face.



> In a democracy, majority rules. Didn't we just have an election?




Yes majority rules BUT, due process is an integral part of democracy. Everyone has the right to vote. In Queenslands case the government didn't announce a fluoridation policy in any election campaign that I am aware of.  

Secondly, an essential element of democracy is individual rights and conscientious objections. Let me illistrate.

One who refuses to vote cannot be made to vote against their will. Aus tries to intimidate people to vote by threatening fines if they don't. 
People can refuse vaccinations for whatever reasons, but the health system cannot forceably administer them except in special circumstances such as very contageous diseases. 

People can even refuse lifesaving blood transfusions on religious grounds and as far as I know they can't be forceably administered without consent.

Yet the pro fluoride loby would mass medicate everyone and deny our civil rights to abstain from medication by conscientious objections. Teeth decay is certainly not a contagious desease. Even some of the contagious deseases that many people refuse to vacinate for are not forceably administered.

Finally, due process just hasn't been followed in the fluoridation issue.



> For the record, I don't think subsidising fluoride filtration systems is a good use of public money, just because I didn't write words to that effect, doesn't mean I hadn't previously considered it.




Why not? It's the public's money, not the premier or gov money. They are entrusted to administer the funds for the peoples benifit. Shouldn't the people have a say in whether or not those who don't want fluoridation should be provided filters? At present there are whole local government areas that don't want fluoridation, but the state gov is wanting to completely override them. 

Same as local gov mergers in QLD. Beattie threatened to sack any councils that organised a public vote. Well the votes have now been counted with an overwhelming majority against amalgamation, but new premier Bligh says she is going to merge them anyway. 

*This Qld gov is not behaving like a democracy at work... this is an autocracy.*



> I wonder Whiskers, if I was of the same opinion as you, would you be going to all this trouble?




Obvioulsy not, but I would still be trying to engage those who dissagreed.


----------



## Whiskers (19 December 2007)

BraceFace said:


> No thanks Sigmund.
> You've already given me enough free personality evaluation on this thread.
> You're not a Scientologist by any chance are you.
> 
> Seriously Whiskers, you need to get out more. The amount of time you spend on this forum psychoanalysing anyone with a contrary opinion to yours is quite amazing.




What's up braceface? You wanted my credentials... I gave them to you... Whats the problem, am I not well enough educated or bright enough for you to associate with?

I'm sorry to see that you continue to trivialise ordinary peoples concerns.

Increasingly not very becoming of a professional. Not a good look for a dentist.

I think you should engage in some stress counselling and conflict resolution?

This is a very important matter to a lot of people, including you... apparently... so I reserve my right to discuss it to my hearts content.



> Get out from behind the computer and go get some sun on your back or go and give your kids a hug.
> Don't forget to slip slop slap (not your kids).




What... people aren't allowed to work on their computer now eh! I get all the sun I need to stay healthy and my kids are at work far away... for what it's worth, braceface. Pretty poor attempt at psychoanalysing, just an attempt at an insulting barb thats all.

Braceface, you could save yourself all this angst if you would just address the issues I raised rather than just trying to trivialise and humiliate me.


----------



## chops_a_must (19 December 2007)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:


> Busselton's water tastes pretty damn nice though, supplied by the local water board which has absolutely nothing to do with the state water authority.
> Not sure how many large towns have there own water board in west oz, can't be many.



As opposed to the water just south of Bunbury which tastes like ass and is probably toxic.

We've spoken about this before, but the ground water from Capel through Bunbury is highly contaminated, yet the local people worry about flouride. Beats me.  "Look at the big roads Capel Sands built" the locals say. "That's to help with future legal action" I say. But I guess it doesn't matter if birds die when they drink the water, so long as you've got good roads. Lol! I think the Harvey Water Board are going to have some massive future legal problems.

The WA Water Corp is one of the most accountable, responsible, environmentally sound of any corporation in the world. I'd trust them moreso than just about any other body. As opposed to say, Melville City Council, which, through mismanagement has left all of their Canning River tributaries and half of the ground water under the council area heavily polluted with heavy metals and other such problems. Which is going to mean problems for people like me in 30-40-50 years, and for anyone living in the area for the next 100.


----------



## Sprinter79 (19 December 2007)

Whiskers, I wasn't talking about the Qld govt election, i was talking about the fed one to show that just under half of the population didn't vote for Labor. 

Let's use Workchoices as an example..... At the first opportunity the public had, they voted out those who brought that legislation in. Qld voters will have that chance. 

I much prefer to do things face to face, and I avoid the telephone at work. I take most of my information from non-verbal sources.

There are much better things to do with tax money than subsidise filtration systems. 

Like I said before, there are simple solutions.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (19 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> As opposed to the water just south of Bunbury which tastes like ass and is probably toxic.




Yep I would agree the areas around capel,stratham,ludlow are toxic (quite a few raped the area and buried the heavy metal slag before ILU came about) . 
Not that any of the locals moved when the likes of Cable Sands yada yada................dug up there back yards and wacked in some clean fill. The locals thought it perfectly logical to stay on cause the sand under there slabs was O.K. .

Maybe a bit of fluoride in the water might help with the locals odd skin glow and lump on the shoulder!


----------



## chops_a_must (20 December 2007)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:


> Yep I would agree the areas around capel,stratham,ludlow are toxic (quite a few raped the area and buried the heavy metal slag before ILU came about) .
> Not that any of the locals moved when the likes of Cable Sands yada yada................dug up there back yards and wacked in some clean fill. The locals thought it perfectly logical to stay on cause the sand under there slabs was O.K. .
> 
> Maybe a bit of fluoride in the water might help with the locals odd skin glow and lump on the shoulder!




Yeah, we had folks in Boyanup that moved about 10 years ago. I remember at the time that the land was virtually worthless because of these goings on. One had cancer etc. etc. I'd like to see the stats on that in those areas...


----------



## Whiskers (20 December 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> Whiskers, I wasn't talking about the Qld govt election, i was talking about the fed one to show that just under half of the population didn't vote for Labor.
> 
> Let's use Workchoices as an example..... At the first opportunity the public had, they voted out those who brought that legislation in. Qld voters will have that chance.




Unfortunately Qld hasn't got anything like a viable alternative gov at the moment and the way the opposition are still fighting among themselves we probably still won't have next state election.

The present gov knows that and are plainly turning autocratic because they can't remotely see themselves getting voted out. It may be that their autocratic behaviour may get bad enough that people decide that any other option must be better. But we cannot count on that or just sit on our hands while they refuse to consult let alone take any notice of the electorate. 

So, really that is not a simple solution over here.

What I am trying to promote is an objective assessement of the effectiveness of fluoridation of the water supply, not in a narrow sense as a decay prevention measure, but in it's holistic effect. The pro fluoride lobby including Qld gov boasts some 300m people in the world use fluoridation. Thats about 2\3 of America and Australia... pretty much it. They love to boast the endorsement of peer groups and particularly the WHO. 

For example the Qld gov site states unaquivically that fluoride is safe and is supported by the WHO. It doesn't quote the unfavourable... *but with qualifications* bit.

The American Cancer Society noted:


> In its review published in 1987, *the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization*, labeled fluorides as “non-classifiable as to their carcinogenicity [ability to cause cancer] in humans.” While they noted that the studies “have shown no consistent tendency for people living in areas with high concentrations of fluoride in the water to have higher cancer rates than those living in areas with low concentrations,” *they also noted that the evidence was inadequate to draw conclusions one way or the other*.
> http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/c...Fluoridation_and_Cancer_Risk.asp?sitearea=WHO




The precise quidelines from WHO:


> The primary aim of the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality is the protection
> of public health. The GDWQ provide an assessment of the health risk
> presented by micro-organisms and chemicals present in drinking-water. This
> assessment can then be applied to the development and implementation of
> ...


----------



## Knobby22 (20 December 2007)

in 1987, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, labeled fluorides as “non-classifiable as to their carcinogenicity [ability to cause cancer] in humans.” While they noted that the studies “have shown no consistent tendency for people living in areas with high concentrations of fluoride in the water to have higher cancer rates than those living in areas with low concentrations,” they also noted that the evidence was inadequate to draw conclusions one way or the other." 

Convincing argument (not).
You can say the same about Vegemite or Evian mineral water.


----------



## Sprinter79 (20 December 2007)

OK whiskers, what would be a realistic goal for the anti-fluoridites? 

Long term, to remove fluoride from drinking water? Fair enough.

Short term, to put in place measures to remove fluoride at a local level until such time as either a) credible scientific studies are able to provide a significant body of evidence to show that fluoride in the drinking water is a significant enough public health issue; or b) a political party has this issue high enough on its priority list so that it acts? 

By the way, who do you think has the most to gain from confusion over tap water? It wouldn't be the beverage companies would it?

Just looking at a certain 'bottled water' bottle the other day, I noticed that it contained magnesium...... mmmm tasty!


----------



## Whiskers (20 December 2007)

Knobby22 said:


> Convincing argument (not).
> You can say the same about Vegemite or Evian mineral water.




Hi Knobby

That's my point, there is no convincing evidence that fluoride doesn't have a  carcinogenic effect, ableit maybe less concern than other health issues. With all issues evaluated in a holistic view there is good reason to err on the side of caution and refrain from mass medication and respect individual rights NOT to medicate with it if they choose so.

I've not heard much complaints about Vegemite, except I think that a Yanke company bought it. 

So called 'mineral waters' are being critised and examined. Apparently they actually range from filtered tap water to unadulterated spring or stream water with all sorts of varing elements.



Sprinter79 said:


> OK whiskers, what would be a realistic goal for the anti-fluoridites?




For Qld who doesn't have it yet... STOP. Do not install intill the Gov acknowledges the risks of increasing exposure are more serious than doing nothing and undertake a HOLISTIC evaluation that enables people to make individual well informed choices about whether to use fluoride or not... preferably in consultation with their GP as they would with any other medication, allowing the GP to consider the other effects of fluoride in present medications, diet, local enviornment etc.

Those who already have fluoridation... I would refrain from consuming it and go to above status.

Even dental groups in the US that believe in some benifit from fluoridation recognise that increasing exposure to fluoride is harmful as the following excerpt from the *Oregon Dental Association *site



> SCIENTISTS SOUND WARNING ON HIGH NATURAL FLUORIDE LEVELS
> 
> From the Los Angeles Times By Marla Cone Times Staff Writer
> March 23, 2006
> ...






> By the way, who do you think has the most to gain from confusion over tap water? It wouldn't be the beverage companies would it?
> 
> Just looking at a certain 'bottled water' bottle the other day, I noticed that it contained magnesium...... mmmm tasty!




Certainly the beverage companies have benifited from confusion over the quality of tap water in the past, but I don't know of any that are promoting any benifits of fluoride. I think many of them also contain varying amounts of fluoride. 

Magnesium is classified as an essential element for plant and animal life, albiet in proper balance... I don't believe fluoride can be put in the same catogary. In all my experience of plant sap and soil analysis and even personal blood tests, I have never seen fluoride mentioned as a necessary element, more often associated with undesirable salts.


----------



## ajoz (20 December 2007)

Came across this interesting article today about children's medication that has  not been found to be safe or effective for them to take much less doctors actually knowing how to prescribe them. Perhaps fluoride should be added to the same category and as 'Whiskers' pointed out should not be used unless proven to be *100% safe*. Why do we persist with this when there are more than enough countries that don't, yet their children have the same or better dental health without any potential risks or side effects. 

*A Gap in Knowledge About Kids, Medication*

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 23, 2007; Page A01

*A decade after the government began trying to ensure that prescription drugs used to treat children work and are safe, doctors still have scant information to guide them when they administer many medications to kids.
*
Although federal regulators have enticed or forced pharmaceutical companies to conduct hundreds of studies that have produced vital results about more than 200 drugs, perhaps two-thirds of the thousands of medications given to children remain untested on them.

"Are there children dying because of this? I don't know. Are there children being less effectively treated because of this? Probably yes. But I can't tell you because I don't know," said Richard L. Gorman of the American Academy of Pediatrics. "That's the problem: We don't know what we don't know."

What researchers have discovered has been disturbing. A highly effective adult migraine drug, for example, turned out to be worthless in children, while sometimes causing serious side effects, including strokes. An asthma inhaler could inhibit growth. A narcotic patch routinely used to relieve pain, such as after tonsil surgery, could cause fatal overdoses. Doctors were giving far too little of a medicine used to prevent seizures.

The alarming gap in medical knowledge is the legacy of many factors. The testing of drugs in children was shunned for decades as unnecessary and unethical; Congress and the pharmaceutical industry did not provide adequate funding; and conducting medical experiments on children is difficult.


The quandary stems from the same dynamics that left over-the-counter pediatric cold remedies on drugstore shelves despite little evidence that they helped and mounting evidence that they could be dangerous. Pharmaceutical companies, regulators and researchers long thought that doctors could safely extrapolate the results of studies in adults and simply scale down the doses.

"Up to the late 1990s, children were mostly left out of new drug development," said Ralph E. Kauffman, an emeritus professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri School of Medicine in Kansas City. "It just wasn't thought necessary."

At the same time, pharmaceutical developers had little incentive to focus on children.

"Pediatric patients were always the orphans. People didn't pay enough attention to them. They're just not a big enough market share," said Lisa Mathis, associate director for the pediatric and maternal health staff at the Food and Drug Administration's office for new drugs.

But researchers started to realize that children react to many drugs in surprising ways.

"Children are different; they are not just small adults," said Gregory L. Kearns, a professor of pharmacology and pediatrics at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. "They are not just fractions of adults."

In 1997, Congress began to address the problem. The FDA Modernization Act gave the agency a crucial tool: It could offer companies six precious extra months to sell a drug without competition if they studied it in children. The prospect of millions if not billions of dollars of extra sales stimulated a willingness and the necessary infrastructure to do such testing on a wide scale.

Congress renewed the FDA's authority in 2002 with the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, which also established mechanisms for the FDA to work with the National Institutes of Health to start scrutinizing some drugs that companies ignored or had no incentive to study because they already had generic competitors.

The legislation called for Congress to appropriate $200 million for the NIH to study the highest-priority medications. And in response to criticism that the pharmaceutical industry was getting a windfall from profitable patent extensions, the legislation established a fund to help finance studies that companies would not at the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, a private nonprofit entity.

"There was a lot of horse-trading going on, and the pharmaceutical companies implied they would also step up to the plate," Gorman said.

Advocates pushed for a written commitment from the industry to provide $6 million a year, said Elaine Vining, who was the chief lobbyist of American Academy of Pediatrics at the time. Then-Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) chaired the House committee that negotiated the legislation.

"Unfortunately for children, that money never materialized," Vining said. Tauzin subsequently took over as the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

The foundation has raised $4.2 million -- barely enough to pay for half of one study of one drug.

Industry representatives said there was never a formal obligation to contribute to the fund. Noting that companies are spending tens of millions of dollars sponsoring studies of patented drugs, they blamed the shortfall primarily on the failure of Congress to appropriate the promised money.

"The expectation was that NIH funding would come into play to help conduct those studies," said Alan Goldhammer of PhRMA.

In the absence of the congressional funding, the NIH has spent $25 million a year in each of the past three years to study a handful of the drugs identified as the biggest concerns.

"We've sort of cobbled together studies as best we can based on the resources we have available," said Donald R. Mattison, chief of the obstetric and pediatric pharmacology branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Of about 50 drugs that have been deemed high priority, the NIH has managed to launch studies of 14, including Ritalin, lithium and morphine. But only preliminary steps have been completed.

"It takes time, and it's complicated," Mattison said. "We've made substantial progress in terms of identifying drugs that need to be tested and the appropriate testing that we need to do to better understand how to use them in children. But these are very difficult studies to do."

Physically collecting and analyzing blood samples and other data from children is often harder, for example. Drugs usually need to be evaluated separately in four age groups. And parents can be wary about letting their children participate.

"When they hear the word 'study,' parents are often very reluctant," said Robert M. Ward, director of the pediatric pharmacology program at the University of Utah. "They don't want their child to be thought of as a guinea pig or a rat in a study. What I try to explain is that if they are receiving a medication that hasn't been studied, then they are essentially participating in an experiment anyway."

One big help was the 2003 Pediatric Research Equity Act, which authorized the FDA to require companies to test new drugs on children before they are approved for sale. That has stimulated more than 200 studies, resulting in 64 drugs carrying specific information about how to use them in children.

But the most successful part of the effort remains the initial program offering incentives to drug companies. The FDA has requested more than 800 studies of nearly 300 drugs, and pharmaceutical companies have agreed to do most of them, enabling the FDA to give doctors specific advice about 138 drugs, so far.

"It's been highly successful," said Dianne Murphy, head of the FDA's office of pediatric drug development. "We've really begun to learn how much we don't know."

In about a fifth of the cases, drugs that work in adults were found ineffective in children. In about another fifth, the doses being used had to be changed. Another third caused unexpected side effects, including some that were potentially fatal.

"We have been humbled by the knowledge we have gained from these studies," Mathis said.

Surprisingly, the dosages were often too low. Children's bodies, it turns out, often process drugs more quickly than adult bodies do.

*At the same time, one of the major concerns is that drugs may adversely affect development.

"Unlike adults, children are growing. So there are a lot more things that can be adversely affected in a child than in an adult. Their growth could be stunted. Their emotional or cognitive development could be adversely affected," Mattison said.*

Researchers have identified broad categories of drugs that should be a priority for testing, including those used to treat cancers, infections, asthma, high blood pressure and hyperactivity, as well as individual drugs including the antibiotic ampicillin, the autism drug clonidine, the blood thinner heparin and the sedative ketamine.

"You're always treading water," Murphy said.

"We've made a dent over the past 10 years. We've gotten more than 200 drugs studied. But we know that, in that time, there have probably been at least that many new products that have come onto the market that haven't been studied."

It also called again for $200 million more in funding.

"When's the next dangerous drug going to be found? That's what keeps me up at night," said Wayne R. Snodgrass, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas Medical Branch. *"It's what we can't predict that worries me."*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201525.html?nav=rss_health


----------



## chops_a_must (21 December 2007)

We just need to face up to the problem that living causes death. :alcohol:


----------



## wayneL (21 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> We just need to face up to the problem that living causes death. :alcohol:



I'm assuming you have hard data to back that up Chops?


----------



## Sprinter79 (21 December 2007)

Hahahahah!

Well, 100% of births result in death, or, put another way... 100% of deaths begin with birth :

Almost like how 100% of divorces begin in marriage hahahaha


----------



## BraceFace (21 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> We just need to face up to the problem that living causes death. :alcohol:




Yes an 50% of the population have below average intelligence.....


----------



## Yeti (21 December 2007)

*URGENT!*

For those of us who prefer our water without fluoride, here is our chance to stop fluoridation, but note we have to act now, i.e. *today is the last day*:-

The Queensland Government is accepting formal complaints until December 21  about the proposal to fluoridate Queensland public water supplies.

If you are very opposed to the proposed forced fluoridation of 4 million Queenslanders please submit a formal complaint

 (  STATE  IT IS A COMPLAINT, NOT A COMMENT  )

either write to Dr Jeannette Young Chief Health Officer   GPO Box 48  BRISBANE QLD 4001

or email her:    jeanette_young@health.qld.gov.au
Please mark email high priority and  request a read receipt and if you do not mind also send a blind carbon copy to QAWF Inc at info@qawf.org

The formal complaint period closes this Friday.

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO OTHERS OPPOSED TO THIS DRACONIAN PLAN OF THE QLD GOVT.

Merilyn Haines on behalf of Queenslanders Against Water Fluoridation Inc  07 38791080   mob 0418 777112

Link where the Qld Govt's spin can be found

http://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/consultqld/index.cfm?go=consultonline.viewIssue&activityID=150


----------



## Whiskers (21 December 2007)

I like... you are what you think.

If you think positive thoughts you tend to achieve positive things.



chops_a_must said:


> We just need to face up to the problem that living causes death. :alcohol:




Don't be in too much hurry to get there... you might just get your wish.



Sprinter79 said:


> Hahahahah!
> 
> Well, 100% of births result in death, or, put another way... 100% of deaths begin with birth :
> 
> Almost like how 100% of divorces begin in marriage hahahaha




Sprinter, just when I thought you were coming around to rational objectiveness. 

But at least you see both sides of the spectrum.



BraceFace said:


> Yes an 50% of the population have below average intelligence.....




Come on braceFace... let's get out of the negativity... it harbours bad karma.

I prefer to think 50% of the population have above average intelligence.

I do have hard data to back that up. 

Goodonya Yeti, that was going to be my next task.


----------



## Yeti (21 December 2007)

*URGENT!*

*Correction to e-mail address in post number 209 above:*

Please note that Jeannette should be spelled with double-n in the email address as follows:

jeannette_young@health.qld.gov.au

For those who may be interested, I have sent the following email:

To: Dr. Jeannette Young, Chief Health Officer.

Complaint about proposed fluoridation of Queensland public water supply.

Dear Dr. Young,

I am not convinced that fluoridation of drinking water has any benefits. In fact, in my personal research I have found much evidence that it may be dangerous and I have grave concerns that it will be detrimental to public health.

Because of that I believe that the choice whether to take Fluoride in any way, be it added to drinking water or added to food or as a medication, must be left to each person individually or in the case of children, to those children's parents or guardians.

Please note therefore that I hereby lodge my formal complaint against the proposed legislation and fluoridation of Queensland's public water supply.

Respectfully,


----------



## Julia (21 December 2007)

Many thanks, Yeti.
Have added my protest.


----------



## chops_a_must (21 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> I'm assuming you have hard data to back that up Chops?



I think it's just called Tavern Philosophy 101.

Kind of like when you analyse the logical fallacies of the warnings on cigarette packs. You know, the ones that say things like, "Smoking is a leading cause of death." I would have thought not breathing and hearts failing to beat would be right up there. But there you go, obviously not.


----------



## moneymajix (27 December 2007)

Those behind fluoride in drinking water would be better off looking at reducing the population's surgar intake, imo.




> Dental researchers have proven that the teeth are subject to the same metabolic processes that affect other organs of the body. The entire body is one.
> 
> By adapting a technique originally developed to study movement of fluid within organs like the liver and kidneys, two researchers from Loma Linda School of Dentristry have found that subtle changes in the internal activity of teeth, _caused by sugar_, can be an early sign of later decay ...
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 December 2007)

well I've taken smurf's advice, and bought an electric toothbrush. 
now to remember to brush within half an hour of eating - (when a lot of the decay occurs)
 and cut out snacks between meals 

PS MMx,  giving up sugar is easy - giving up chocolate is not so easy lol.
taste the difference between "natural" yoghurt and a sugar flavoured one   (which might contain more than the equivalent of 12 teaspoonfuls). 

just by the way - sugar and constipation are a deadly combination!! - serious - turns to acid etc - attacks your insides. 

I once read a book about a BAMBY diet (which has greatly influenced my choice of diet) 
Bran, 
And
Multivitamins
B complex , and
Yoghurt 

but no matter which way you look at it , sugar is just "white death" - and sucarine (?) is no better. (as I understand it).


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 December 2007)

> sugar and constipation are deadly !!



that book incidentally said the most important measure of a healthy lifestyle / diet is your STT.  

and it's important that you get your STT down!!

that's Stool Transit Time 

achieved with exercise, bran, stuff like that lol.


----------



## Julia (27 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> that book incidentally said the most important measure of a healthy lifestyle / diet is your STT.
> 
> and it's important that you get your STT down!!
> 
> ...



Oh God, can you please not go on to include a description of your personal bowel habits.
How could we have gone from fluoride to this!


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 December 2007)

don't worry about it sugar


----------



## Whiskers (28 December 2007)

Controversy looming in US over the toxocology of fluoridation. 

A very substantial number of Australian professionals have also signed the petition to end water fluoridation and the numbers keep growing.




> DECEMBER 2007 UPDATE: Due to the more than 1,200 professional signers to this Statement the signatories are now listed in the following sections:
> 
> UNITED STATES: Names beginnning with A-M - N-Z and INTERNATIONAL signers







> PROFESSIONALS' STATEMENT CALLING FOR AN END TO WATER FLUORIDATION
> AUGUST 9, 2007
> 
> We, the undersigned professionals, come from a variety of disciplines but all have an abiding interest in ensuring that government public health and environmental policies be determined honestly, with full attention paid to the latest scientific research and to ethical principles.
> ...


----------



## Julia (28 December 2007)

Will Ms Bligh and her cohorts take any notice of this?
Unlikely.  They have managed to ignore all the other evidence put before them of a similar nature.
Are you, however, sending it through to them,Whiskers?


----------



## Whiskers (29 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Will Ms Bligh and her cohorts take any notice of this?
> Unlikely.  They have managed to ignore all the other evidence put before them of a similar nature.
> Are you, however, sending it through to them,Whiskers?




I have made a solid complaint to the health dept as highlighted in yeti's post above. In that I have made some reference to the above, and very strenuosly objected and pointed out, among other things, that they are advertising lies when they say the WHO and American authorities say fluoridation is completley safe and there is no credible evidence to the contrary.

Individuals and corporations who make such outrageous misrepresentation of facts are certainly accountable. The idea is to put them on notice that politicans even with parlimentary privelage are not totally exempt as some would like to believe and precedents have been made.

There is no doubt that Mr Robertson and Ms Bligh are the main proponents of enforcing fluoridation. At least Beattie was contemplating some form of community vote.

I am currently networking with other professionals, particularly lawyers, working on more legalistic aspects before a more substantive approach/ action towards Mr Robertson and Ms Bligh.


----------



## Julia (29 December 2007)

Good for you, Whiskers.   I'd be one of thousands who really appreciate your efforts.


----------



## treefrog (29 December 2007)

Knobby22 said:


> Can anyone point me to any scientific studies or any other basis beside assertion? At present there only seems to be crackpot argument.




knobby - that is exactly the problem - virtually no studies from either side of the argument and that is why most european countries specifically ban placing it in drinking water

for the pro side of the debate - show us how harmless it is by putting a teaspoon of this S6 poison in your tea or coffee - it has a sweetish taste so is quite palatable.......

how do I know it is sweet? - I have tasted just a few grains and was quite ill with a serious headache and nausea for the next few hours


----------



## Bruiser (30 December 2007)

Hi Julia,

I hope this info helps

http://www.aeoncp.com.au/Reverse_Osmosis_Water_Filtration.htm


Bruiser


----------



## spottygoose (30 December 2007)

Whiskers said:


> I have made a solid complaint to the health dept as highlighted in yeti's post above. In that I have made some reference to the above, and very strenuosly objected and pointed out, among other things, that they are advertising lies when they say the WHO and American authorities say fluoridation is completley safe and there is no credible evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Individuals and corporations who make such outrageous misrepresentation of facts are certainly accountable. The idea is to put them on notice that politicans even with parlimentary privelage are not totally exempt as some would like to believe and precedents have been made.
> 
> ...




Great to hear Whiskers, let us know if you need any help even if just in terms of a petition etc.


----------



## treefrog (30 December 2007)

as one who worked in the water treatment industry for 12 years and was compelled to tip this poison into the bulk water supply in NSW and ACT consider this
it is added to the potable water supply so that everyone gets 1 part per million - ie 1mg/L water
the fundamental assumption of the health department is that 1ppm per day is a safe dose but 1.5ppm is probably not - at least for a significant number of "sensitive types"; so any high dosing variances (they happen reasonably often) must be reported to the health dept by the water treatment plant operator (but not to the public)
the next fundamental assumption is that we all will consume 1l/water per day summer and winter 
it is not hard to work out that if you actually drink fluoridated tap water that even in winter most people consume much more than this as the same health authorities tell us we should drink 6-8 250ml glasses a day - add to this tea and coffee, cordials, garden produce watered with Fl2 water and then add more to cooking etc etc etc and *your daily dose is nearer 3+ppm*

scarey stuff


----------



## Julia (30 December 2007)

Bruiser said:


> Hi Julia,
> 
> I hope this info helps
> 
> ...




Thanks, Bruiser.  Consensus of quotes I've obtained for fully installed is around $1000 for undersink model.  The government should offer rebates on this imo.


----------



## Whiskers (30 December 2007)

treefrog said:


> as one who worked in the water treatment industry for 12 years and was compelled to tip this poison into the bulk water supply in NSW and ACT consider this
> it is added to the potable water supply so that everyone gets 1 part per million - ie 1mg/L water
> the fundamental assumption of the health department is that 1ppm per day is a safe dose but 1.5ppm is probably not - at least for a significant number of "sensitive types"; so any high dosing variances (they happen reasonably often) must be reported to the health dept by the water treatment plant operator (but not to the public)
> the next fundamental assumption is that we all will consume 1l/water per day summer and winter
> ...




Very true treefrog. 

An important point that should not be forgotten is that *fluoride doesn't evaporate off, it concentrates in the residue* as the water steams off. It is not difficult to see how one could get double or tripple the concentrations of fluoride in hot cooked food.

Research in the US also found that juices, soft drinks, energy drinks and particularly baby food made from chicken had in many cases 1ppm or more, up to 6.8ppm fluoride. http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-concentrations.data.htm

There are so many individual variables that make the reason for fluoridation an indiscriminate mess in terms of individual doseage.

The single most obvious is that the target group with poor dental health, probably consume a higher amount of soft drinks and incorrectly start feeding their babies on sugared juices far too early. When you consider that these drinks already contain high fluoride levels that equate to at least 1ppm fluoride, according to the fluoride arguement, they should have better teeth than those who eat healthy and consume more (unfluoridated) water.

Often a little logic goes a long way. It is generally accepted that only 1% of water is consumed, so 99% of fluoridation is just urban industrial waste disposal.

Oh, and most of it eventually washes back into our water courses and ocean and contaminates the marine life. *Fluoride levels in fish was recorded from 2 to 4.5ppm fluoride.*

PS: I'll remember, thanks spottygoose.


----------



## Whiskers (6 January 2008)

As mentioned at the beginning of this thread I had grown up not thinking much about fluoride, and it wasn't until I followed up on some of the posts on this thread that I started hearing alarm bells... like the line in the Qld TV adverts, that _'there is no credible evidence that it [fluoride] causes ill health' _

I will come back to that later, but for now while I personally haven't checked all the data sources that Qld gov refers too in their advertising propaganda material, I am far more inclined to believe the information presented in the following open email.



> > OPEN LETTER ( #1 ) TO THE PREMIER AND MEMBERS OF THE QUEENSLAND
> > PARLIAMENT, THE QUEENSLAND PUBLIC AND MEDIA
> >
> > Lies, damn lies and misleading water fluoridation statistics.
> ...


----------



## Kimosabi (6 January 2008)

treefrog said:


> as one who worked in the water treatment industry for 12 years and was compelled to tip this poison into the bulk water supply in NSW and ACT consider this
> it is added to the potable water supply so that everyone gets 1 part per million - ie 1mg/L water
> the fundamental assumption of the health department is that 1ppm per day is a safe dose but 1.5ppm is probably not - at least for a significant number of "sensitive types"; so any high dosing variances (they happen reasonably often) must be reported to the health dept by the water treatment plant operator (but not to the public)
> the next fundamental assumption is that we all will consume 1l/water per day summer and winter
> ...



Treefrog,

Did the drums actually have Poison labels on them as well?

It's great to see some reality finally come into this Thread...


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 January 2008)

I`m for the letter which would come under the ADWG of which I just perused.



> 1.4 Community consultation
> 
> The ADWG are intended to provide consumers with safe and aesthetically pleasing water and ultimately it is consumers who will be the final judges of water quality. *It is vitally important that **consumers are viewed as active partners **in making decisions about drinking water quality and the levels of service to be adopted*.


----------



## Julia (10 January 2008)

Copy of further letter to the Premier:

 OPPOSED TO FORCED FLUORIDATION?.......PLEASE SEE BOTTOM OF EMAIL  
> OPEN LETTER ( #2 ) TO THE PREMIER AND MEMBERS OF THE QUEENSLAND
> PARLIAMENT, COUNCILS, PUBLIC AND MEDIA
> 
> Dear Premier
> 
> On the 20 April 2005, you and 38 current Labor Party MPs  voted
> against Jean-Paul Langbroek's  Private Members Bill for mandated water
> fluoridation. 
> 
> According to Hansard  these are the 39 Labor MPs who have previously
> voted against mandated water fluoridation   ~
> 
> Julie Attwood, Anna Bligh, Michael Choi, Peta-Kaye Croft, John
> English, Gary Fenlon, Simon Finn, Andrew Fraser, Carolyn Male, Andrew
> McNamara , John Mickel, Jo-Ann Miller, Michael Reynolds, Neil
> Roberts, Stephen Robertson, Robert Schwarten, Desley Scott, Kerry Shine,
> Christine Smith, Judy Spence, Barbara Stone, Karen Struthers, Carryn
> Sullivan, Craig Wallace, Rod Welford, Dean Wells and Geoff Wilson.
> 
> Although some of these members spoke in favour of water
> fluoridation, all rejected the Bill, many saying it was because of the
> process of forcing fluoridation.
> 
> The Local Govt Assn in 2005 commissioned a survey on water
> fluoridation which reported that 73 % of respondents favoured
> fluoridation.
> 
>  This result was not unexpected because it was a push poll that
> employed a leading preamble and a leading question, but even despite this
> the survey found ~
> 
> * 64% of people want a state-wide referendum
> * 56 % of people said a local referendum should be mandatory before
> fluoridation commenced locally 
> 
> As Constituents have shown they want a Referendum,  Labor MPs
> cannot vote for mandated fluoridation even if the Premier orders them to
> vote for it. 
> 
> Since 2005, tooth decay in Queensland children has not worsened,
> children from Qld with less than 5% water fluoridation, compare very
> favourably with children from very heavily fluoridated states; the
> latest national children's dental survey published December 2007 shows ~
> 
> * Qld children now have less decay in baby teeth than children from
> the Northern Territory
> * Qld children have less decay in permanent teeth than children from
> the ACT and very similar to those from Tasmania. 
> 
> Since 2005 , there has still been no evidence to show water
> fluoridation is safe, but there has been many reports linking adverse
> health effects to the practice
> 
> * National Research Council 2006 report " Fluoride in Drinking Water"
> 
> * Lancet publication defining  Fluoride as an emerging Neurotoxin 
> * Chinese studies linking Fluoride to lowered IQ
> * "Cancer, Causes Control" publication linking Osteosarcoma in boys to
> water fluoridation
> * American Dental Association & Centre for Disease Control 2006
> advisories that infants under 12 months of age not consume fluoridated
> water.
> 
> Premier, even if you want your family to swallow fluoride, it is not your
> right to force this on 4 million Queenslanders and it not your right to
> order all the Labor MPs to vote for mandated fluoridation. Queensland
> Members of Parliament have been elected to represent their Constituents,
> not to force fluoridation on them.
> 
> Premier, you are invited to address the Rally Against Forced Fluoridation
> commencing at  9am Tuesday 12 th February, Parliament House, George St.
>  
> Rally organisers   Queenslanders Against Water Fluoridation Inc,
> Fluoride... My Choice,  Australian Fluoridation Information Network
> contact M Haines QAWF Inc  mob 0418 777 112  info@qawf.org
> 
> If you are opposed to forced fluoridation, It would be really
> appreciated if you could copy / paste this email and forward on to as many
> contacts as you can. We cannot afford the  full- page fluoridation
> promotion ads in the Courier Mail , ads in the regional newsapers and the
> ads on radio and TV that the goverment has been doing with taxpayer funds.
> 
> Please see  www.qawf.org  in " tools " for an easy way to email all
> 89 Qld MPs to let them know that you do not want your water supply to be
> fluoridated . 
> 
> Please keep watching the website for details of a " MY WILL "
> petition campaign and about the rally on the morning of Tuesday 12 th
> February. Many thanks QAWF Inc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>


----------



## Whiskers (13 January 2008)

Latest open letter. 

This one is a disgustingly blatent misrepresentation. To suggest that your childs teeth will look like that without fluoridation is a clear indication of the scare mongering and deceptive length these people are prepared to go to. 

I can't wait to see the source of this photo.

Simillarly, the teeth allegedly exposed to fluoridated water... I'll bet they have been touched up with whitening.



> OPEN LETTER ( #3) TO THE PREMIER AND MEMBERS OF THE QUEENSLAND PARLIAMENT, COUNCILS, PUBLIC AND MEDIA
> Dear Premier Anna Bligh
> 
> The Qld Health document  shown here is criminally misleading.  The appalling tooth decay as shown, is not a result of drinking water without fluoride.
> ...


----------



## treefrog (13 January 2008)

Kimosabi said:


> Treefrog,
> 
> Did the drums actually have Poison labels on them as well?
> 
> It's great to see some reality finally come into this Thread...




yes they were/are still labelled toxic sustance S6

fluoride dosing and storage romms are VERY strictly controlled and almost every teaspoonful must be accounted for - if it was generally available (1 teaspoon of the powder is fatal), rat poison, arsenic etc would be readilly used to bump off whoever we didn't like - 

not hard to envisage the post mortem - "appears to have consumed too much tap water" - 

unfortunately often is that many a true word spoken in jest 

but is very potent and very controlled


----------



## Julia (13 January 2008)

Whiskers said:


> Latest open letter.
> 
> This one is a disgustingly blatent misrepresentation. To suggest that your childs teeth will look like that without fluoridation is a clear indication of the scare mongering and deceptive length these people are prepared to go to.
> 
> ...



Whiskers, do you know where those photographs have appeared?  i.e. how widely circulated has this  phoney and misleading rubbish been?


----------



## Whiskers (14 January 2008)

Julia said:


> Whiskers, do you know where those photographs have appeared?  i.e. how widely circulated has this  phoney and misleading rubbish been?




Merilyn says they were sent by an official Qld Health source. Haven't been able to find copy on internet yet. Just don't know yet whether it was meant for internal department purposes, a new promotion or whatever.


----------



## roland (14 January 2008)

Fluoride Linked To Gum Disease
Scientists report a link between dental fluorosis and periodontal disease in the June 2007 Indian Journal of Dental Research. 


here is the link: http://mizar5.com/fluorideGumDisease.html

also - explore the website, if you are interested in keeping your teeth as you age you may pick up some stuff here


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 January 2008)

Does anyone have any proper statistics for dental decay rates in Brisbane (no fluoride) compared with Sydney which has fluoride?


----------



## roland (14 January 2008)

My mother came from Holland just after WWII, she had perfect teeth in a non fluoridated country. Her dental health suffered almost immediately she arrived - she blames it on the water quality, and as we all know "Mother Knows Best"


----------



## Whiskers (15 January 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Does anyone have any proper statistics for dental decay rates in Brisbane (no fluoride) compared with Sydney which has fluoride?




Can't find anything specific to Sydney or Brisbane, Smurf. 

However, the 2002 report, results from New South Wales are excluded due to a lack of representativeness of the sample as highlighted in the appendix of the report.

It should also be noted that the survey also points out that:



> In all jurisdictions, children from both public and private schools are eligible for school dental services. The care typically provided by the school dental services includes dental examinations, preventive services and restorative treatment as required. *However, there are some variations among state and territory programs with respect to priority age groups and the nature of services*. As a consequence, there are variations in the extent of enrolment in school dental services, with some jurisdictions serving more than 80% of primary school children and others serving lower percentages.




So there is a significant element of rubberiness in the figures depending on the particular states priority of health services and bias in reporting their results.

And particularly this little doozie that the Qld gov conviently ignores when praising the success of fluoridation in NSW.



> *Appendix A*
> 
> In 1996 the New South Wales Health Department (NSW Health), through the school dental
> service, implemented the Save Our Kids Smiles (SOKS) program, incorporating three main
> ...



http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/html_files/cdhs2002.pdf


----------



## moXJO (15 January 2008)

My brother told me a story of some people he knew of that use to work treating the drinking water. One time they were so stoned they forgot how many shovels of some chemical used to treat the water (I can’t remember what it was) so they added in a couple extra just to make sure. After reading this thread it turns me off tap water knowing partly what goes on at these places.


----------



## Julia (18 January 2008)

Opposed to water fluoridation? Please see the bottom of this email .
OPEN LETTER ( # 4) TO THE PREMIER AND MEMBERS OF THE QUEENSLAND PARLIAMENT,
COUNCILS, PUBLIC AND MEDIA
Dear Premier
On the 5th December 2007 the Health Minister, Mr Stephen Robertson said on
ABC Radio that people who did not want Fluoride, could install " equipment "
in their home. Presumably by this he meant expensive Reverse Osmosis
filtration units. The only problem with that Premier, is that many people
cannot afford to buy and maintain Reverse Osmosis units or buy large water
tanks or buy bottled water for the rest of their life. 
Even if they could afford water tanks, many people live in flats, units or
retirement homes where there might not the space for a tank, or, they may
not be allowed to install a tank.
These people, through no fault of their own, will be trapped, into having to
consume and also bathe in fluoridated water. Fluoride can be absorbed
through the skin, being a much smaller molecule than Nicotine or Estrogen as
used in skin patches. The very young and the very old with fragile skin are
more vulnerable to external exposure to fluoridated water.
Bob and Eleanor, aged pensioners who have been married for almost fifty
years, are very opposed to forced water fluoridation, but they are in poor
health and financial circumstances. They have recently donated $5 to help
fight forced fluoridation. They would liked to have been able to donate more
to the "Forced Fluoridation Fighting Fund", but cannot afford more.
They have also written to Dr Jeannette Young, Chief Health Officer of Qld
and with their kind permission, we are now forwarding their letter  to all
Qld MPs.

Dear Dr Jeannette Young
Queensland Chief Health Officer
My wife and I are totally opposed to having forced fluoridation of our water
supply. Toowoomba voted overwhelmingly against drinking recycled sewerage
and now we are supposed to drink fluoride? Why can't we vote on fluoridation
of our water supply instead of it being forced on us?
We are supposed to be the "smart" state. The smarter countries have stopped
fluoridating their water! 
There are numerous international scientific studies linking
fluoride/fluoridation with serious health conditions such as hip fractures,
cancer, osteoporosis, thyroid dysfunction, neurological impairment and
irritable bowel syndrome.
I already have bladder cancer and after 32 radiation treatments I also got
irritable bowel syndrome. Why should I be forced to overload my body with
yet more poison?
It is imperative that this proposal / implementation of adding fluoride to
Queensland's water supply be stopped immediately!  Fluoridation is an
infringement of our Human Rights!
Bob and Eleanor Elias         from Toowoomba    ( contact details available
on request )

Dear Premier, please have a heart, how can you do this to  people like Bob
and Eleanor who do not want to have fluoridation forced upon them and who
will have little chance to avoid artificially fluoridated water and the
impacts it will have on their health.
Premier, you made the decision to fluoridate Qld and  it is believed that
you will force all Labor MPs to vote for forced fluoridation to get the new
Bill through Parliament.
Thus Premier it will be one person, yourself Anna Bligh, who will be
responsible for mass medicating 4 million Queenslanders. 
Many of the 4 million Queenslanders you want to medicate will be like Bob
and Eleanor, they will be trapped with few options.
Premier, we invite you to address the " Rally Against Forced Fluoridation "
at 9am Tuesday 12 th Feb, Parliament House, George St 
Authorised by M Haines on behalf of Queenslanders Against Water Fluoridation
Inc     contact     info@qawf.org    mob 0418 777112     www.qawf.org

Fluoridation, it's not science, it's just marketing.


If you are opposed to forced fluoridation, It would be really  appreciated
if you could copy and paste this email into a new email ( to get rid of
forwarding arrows ) and then forward on to as many contacts as you can. We
cannot afford the full- page fluoridation  promotion ads in the Courier Mail
, ads in the regional newsapers and the
ads on radio and TV, even the posters in public toilets, that the Qld Govt
have been doing with our taxpayer funds.

Please see www.qawf.org   " tools for fighting fluoridation " for an easy
way to email all  89 Qld MPs to let them know that you do not want your
water supply to be fluoridated . 

Please keep watching the website for details of a " MY WILL " petition
campaign and about the rally on the morning of Tuesday 12 th February. 
Thank you if you can help, on behalf of  QAWF INc


----------



## Kimosabi (18 January 2008)

> *Scientific Study Finds Fluoride Horror Stories Factual*
> 
> Industrial by-product consumed by millions of Americans lowers IQ, causes cancer Prison Planet | January 15, 2008
> 
> ...



http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/fluoride_study_finds_horror_stories_factual.htm


----------



## spottygoose (18 January 2008)

Good job on all the hard work guys and girls. I have signed the petition and sent an email to all 89 Queensland MP's. Keep up the fight!


----------



## treefrog (23 January 2008)

Dr. Mercola's Comments:  
If more Americans knew that fluoride, which many dentists STILL mistakenly promote as the panacea for healthy teeth, is also the active toxin in rat poisons and cockroach powder, I suspect they would feel vastly different about ingesting it via drinking water and toothpaste.

But FINALLY the tides do seem to be turning.

In 2005, eleven unions within the EPA publicly called for a ban of water fluoridation, over concerns that it may cause bone cancer. And in 2006, the American Dental Association warned parents of infants not to use fluoridated water when mixing baby formula. 

When you begin to examine the evidence surrounding water fluoridation, this gradual retraction makes perfect sense. 

As award-winning journalist Christopher Bryson revealed in his book The Fluoride Deception, there has been a multi-tiered effort -- or as Bryson says, an abuse of power -- by military and industry scientists and public health officials to shamelessly promote fluoride to the dentistry field and the American public with little regard to the implications it would have on human health.

Just what are those potential implications? 

An increased risk of bone cancer

Fluorosis, a discoloring of your teeth and breakdown of their enamel (between 30 percent and 50 percent of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in “optimally fluoridated communities”) 
An increased risk of osteoporosis 
Developmental problems such as lower IQ 
But that’s not all. According to Paul Connett, PhD:


1. Fluoride accumulates in your bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.

2. Fluoride accumulates in your pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin, a very important regulatory hormone 

3. There are serious concerns about a connection between fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.

4. In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into your brain.

5. Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates.

6. The fluoridating agents most commonly used in the United States not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.


Of course, the main reason why fluoride is reportedly added to the U.S. water supply in the first place is to prevent cavities. Yet, data compiled by the World Health Organization shows no difference in tooth decay in countries that use fluoridated water compared with countries that don’t use fluoridated water. So not only is fluoride unsafe, it is ineffective as well.

Get That Fluoride Out of Your Water!

If you are receiving your water from a municipal water supply in the United States, your water is probably fluoridated -- and a simple carbon filter will not remove it.

You must filter your tap water with a reverse osmosis filter to remove fluoride, and remember to use this water not only for drinking but also for washing fruits and veggies, making ice cubes and cooking.

You can also join the fight against water fluoridation by supporting the Fluoride Action Network’s petition to end water fluoridation. It’s already been signed by over 1,200 professionals, including a Nobel Prize winner, three officers in the union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the executive board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, leading fluoride researchers, and medical, dental, scientific and environmental professionals from around the world.


----------



## Whiskers (29 January 2008)

Bligh's proposed timetable for introduction of fluoridation in Qld. 

Don't rush out buying your reverse osmosis filters just yet. Even by Bligh's timetable this ain't gonna happen overnight.

Note: Bundaberg (Burnett) is among the last on the calender. Probably because it was soundly rejected here back in the sixties.


----------



## AngusM (29 January 2008)

Im 36, living in Sydney and no fillings. Personally I suspect its something in the water. Flame on


----------



## wayneL (29 January 2008)

AngusM said:


> Im 36, living in Sydney and no fillings. Personally I suspect its something in the water. Flame on



I had a mouth full of fillings by age 10, lived in LA (a flouridated water supply). Musta been sumthin' in the water.


----------



## Julia (1 February 2008)

Whiskers said:


> Bligh's proposed timetable for introduction of fluoridation in Qld.
> 
> Don't rush out buying your reverse osmosis filters just yet. Even by Bligh's timetable this ain't gonna happen overnight.
> 
> Note: Bundaberg (Burnett) is among the last on the calender. Probably because it was soundly rejected here back in the sixties.



Whiskers, do you happen to know whether Hervey Bay will be lumped in with Burnett also?  Or maybe Maryborough?

Reminder for anyone in Brisbane who is able to attend the Anti-Fluoride Rally outside Parliament on the first sitting day and also QUT.


----------



## Whiskers (1 February 2008)

Julia said:


> Whiskers, do you happen to know whether Hervey Bay will be lumped in with Burnett also?  Or maybe Maryborough?
> 
> Reminder for anyone in Brisbane who is able to attend the Anti-Fluoride Rally outside Parliament on the first sitting day and also QUT.




Don't know for sure Julia, but I tend to think Maryborough.

Tuesday Feb 12 is shaping up to be a pretty good public awareness campaign.

Pity the petition to the US Congress is held up and overshadowed for the moment by the subprime mess. That petition could sign the complete death nell of fluoridation. But no doubt there are the usual suspects doing everything they can to prevent it being fully scrutinised in a public forum.


----------



## Knobby22 (1 February 2008)

There was a great special by National Geographic on the ABC that showed that certain chemicals are harmless in low doses when tested.

However it was shown that when mixed with other chemicals which are also proven harmless in low doses something may happen that makes the animal susceptible to cancers or other problems.

The US has this problem with the water from the central lakes. Studies are still in their infancy but it makes you wonder about fluoride.


----------



## Whiskers (1 February 2008)

Knobby22 said:


> There was a great special by National Geographic on the ABC that showed that certain chemicals are harmless in low doses when tested.
> 
> However it was shown that when mixed with other chemicals which are also proven harmless in low doses something may happen that makes the animal susceptible to cancers or other problems.
> 
> The US has this problem with the water from the central lakes. Studies are still in their infancy but it makes you wonder about fluoride.




That's a very pertinent point knobby. I'll see what I can find about that research.

Fluoride concentrates are extremely acidic, ph 0 and extremely corrosive.

One of my concerns is about the point of testing a fluoridated water supply. The fluoride content is tested at the injection end, but so far I have not found anything about full spectrum testing at the consumer tap end.

Even though the fluoride concentration is diluted heavily, I still wonder whether it can still slowly release chemicals from any or all the materials that have been used for water supply pipes including AC (asbestos concrete) pipes, cast iron, lead/zinc galvanised steel, PVC (Polyvinyl chloride), polyethylene, and copper.

All these materials are still in use in various degrees in different areas. There are a lot of toxic elements there that can be destabalised with prolonged use of a strong acid with properties like fluorine, one of the most reactive chemical elements, and it is not difficult to imagine the possibilites of leaching.


----------



## Whiskers (12 February 2008)

Dr Jeannette Young Chief Health Officer Qld Health, refused to debate fluoridation with a professor of chemistry on 4BC Brisbane and network stations hosted by Greg Carey this morning.

She would only agree to comment to questions via Greg Carey.

The good news is the transcript will be availably soon on 4BC.  Some good self-incriminationg stuff theere. 

When asked by Carey, if children had proper parental supervision brushing teeth and didn't eat so much sweet junk food, would they have just as good teeth as children just on fluoridated water (who didn't brush teeth properly and ate too much junk food)?

Dr Jeannette Young's reply was they would no doubt have better teeth...  but the point is fluoridation is to help protect all childrens teeth.  

From their own figures, 3 out of 4 children up to 15 yrs have absolutely nil decay, ie DMFT= 0, so WHY do they need extra help from fluoridation!! 

That is the head of our health department examplifing the irrisponsible 'we'll just give it a bit more for good measure' mentality that we have been trying to educate people who handle chemicals, medications, pesticides etc NOT to do!!!! 

Will have more difinitive action plan once I get a look at the Short Title, General Outline and Explanatory Notes of the proposed fluoridation legislation.


----------



## Whiskers (12 February 2008)

Greg Cary talks to anti-fluoride expert Dr Paul Connett & Dr Janet Young, Chief Health Officer Qld Health on 4BC radio this morning.

http://www.mytalk.com.au/aspx/pages/mediaplayer.aspx?t=audio&w=6658


----------



## Whiskers (25 February 2008)

On a qld Gov DPI website: Re sheep

Got those magic words on a Qld Gov website. 



> *Prevention*
> fluorine is a cumulative poison






> *Treatment*
> There is no treatment.




http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/sheep/10471.html

Good stuff.


----------



## chops_a_must (25 February 2008)

Whiskers said:


> On a qld Gov DPI website: Re sheep
> 
> Got those magic words on a Qld Gov website.
> 
> ...




Are you still going on about this.

I think there is a bigger environmental catastrophe in your state on the cards, that will endanger people's health there. Ever heard of lead?

Know what the biggest lead mine in the world is?

Do you know where it is exported from?

Did you know that the safety ponds at the port were not adequate and overflowed 2 years ago?

Do you know what _Town_ recently flooded?

Has anyone living there had blood tests?

Did BHP cover the last problem up, and nearly lose its export license from there?

Is it going to happen again? Or is this just going to be another Esperance?

Are you Whiskers going to ask questions? Or does lead not compare in its dangers to fluoride?


----------



## Whiskers (26 February 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Are you still going on about this.




YES! 



> I think there is a bigger environmental catastrophe in your state on the cards, that will endanger people's health there. Ever heard of lead?
> 
> Are you Whiskers going to ask questions? Or does lead not compare in its dangers to fluoride?




Gladstone had a sulphur problem years ago. 

I've dealt with arsnic ones before.

Lead is certainly up there with arsnic and fluorine.

Doing my best. Can't be everywhere at once.


----------



## moneymajix (26 February 2008)

FLUORIDATION PROVED NOT TO WORK AND NOW QLD HEALTH IS CUTTING OUT SCHOOL DENTAL SERVICE TREATMENT 

and


$35 million dollars would be wasted on forced water fluoridaton. 

This would pay for a lot of school dental therapists and education programmes.

STATE PULLS PIN ON SCHOOL DENTIST CHAIR 
"Kicked in the teeth " By Jennifer O'Reilly
Townsville Bulletin - Saturday February 16, 2008


----------



## freddy2 (26 February 2008)

Saying fluoride is a poison is a red herring and intellectually dishonest. Every single chemical including H20 (water) can be defined as a poison if the dosage is high enough. Also anti-coagulants commonly used in medicine are used as rat poisons. There may be many valid arguments against fluoride but the "it's a poison" argument is not one of them.


----------



## Whiskers (26 February 2008)

freddy2 said:


> Saying fluoride is a poison is a red herring and intellectually dishonest. Every single chemical including H20 (water) can be defined as a poison if the dosage is high enough.




Since you mentioned intellect, freddy, lets have a look at the definition of a poison.

*POISON*

a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health. 

_Chemistry_. to destroy or diminish the activity of (a catalyst or enzyme).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/poison

Hardly fits the common, let alone legal definition of water, does it!



> Also anti-coagulants commonly used in medicine are used as rat poisons.




That's why there is a poisons schedule monitered by the Poisons Schedule Standing Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).



> There may be many valid arguments against fluoride but the "it's a poison" argument is not one of them.




There certainly are valid arguements against fluoride, fluoridation in particular and POISON certainly is one of them.


----------



## freddy2 (26 February 2008)

Whiskers said:


> Since you mentioned intellect, freddy, lets have a look at the definition of a poison.
> 
> *POISON*
> 
> ...




 I should have known better than get into an argument with you anti-fluoride ... who have no understanding of therapeutic doses and similar concepts but are happy to keep parroting "the dictionary says fluoride is a poison so it must be bad". You do realise that there is such a medical condition as water posioning? Or when you require an anti-coagulant for medical treatment will you say "Sorry doc, don't treat me with anti-coagulants  because they are used as rat poison"? Any chemical is neither all bad or all good but has an effect that is a function of dosage.


----------



## Julia (26 February 2008)

freddy2 said:


> I should have known better than get into an argument with you anti-fluoride ... who have no understanding of therapeutic doses and similar concepts but are happy to keep parroting "the dictionary says fluoride is a poison so it must be bad". You do realise that there is such a medical condition as water posioning? Or when you require an anti-coagulant for medical treatment will you say "Sorry doc, don't treat me with anti-coagulants  because they are used as rat poison"? Any chemical is neither all bad or all good but has an effect that is a function of dosage.



If we were to accept your argument, could you comment on why you would feel it is acceptable to force fluoride on those who do not want it (regardless of their reasons), rather than subsidise  or entirely pay for the cost of providing a personal supply of fluoride to those who do wish to consume it.
I am quite happy for my tax dollars to go to providing a free supply of fluoride tablets for any Queenslander who wishes to add it to their drinking water.

For me this comes down to a moral argument as much as anything else.

The supply of clean drinking water is a basic right of every person in a civilised society such as ours.  To add a substance which many people - for their own very good reasons - do not want in that basic water supply is rendering that water supply undrinkable.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 February 2008)

Whiskers said:


> YES!
> Gladstone had a sulphur problem years ago.



Due to what? Just wondering...

Oil use at the alumina plant???


----------



## Whiskers (26 February 2008)

freddy2 said:


> I should have known better than get into an argument with you anti-fluoride ... who have no understanding of therapeutic doses and similar concepts




As it turns out I know quite a bit about therapeutic doses and similar concepts. 


> Originally Posted by *Whiskers*
> That's why there is a poisons schedule monitered by the Poisons Schedule Standing Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).






> but are happy to keep parroting "the dictionary says fluoride is a poison so it must be bad".




The dictionary said poison is



> a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.
> 
> Chemistry. to destroy or diminish the activity of (a catalyst or enzyme).




You incorrectly expanded the dictionary "says fluoride" is a poison.



> You do realise that there is such a medical condition as water posioning?




Indeed. But strictly speaking it is not poisoning. Water intoxication or hyperhydration, occurs when extreme amounts of water are consumed in a short period of time. It's as a direct result of an imbalance of electrolytes in body fluids

Deaths from water intoxication in normal individuals result from either water drinking contests, in which individuals attempt to consume large amounts of water in just a few minutes, or long periods of intense exercise when electrolytes are not replenished with the water.

Water isn't poisoning in the true sense of poisoning, because it doesn't have an inherant property to destroy health or life and destroy or diminish the activity of (a catalyst or enzyme). 

The problem of water intoxication or hyperhydration comes about because of some extreme activity stretching the body to the limit without a proper balance of electrolytes.



> Or when you require an anti-coagulant for medical treatment will you say "Sorry doc, don't treat me with anti-coagulants  because they are used as rat poison"?




Actually I take a low dose asprin daily as does my GP for just that. But you make the silly comparrison.



> Any chemical is neither all bad or all good but has an effect that is a function of dosage.




Well, at least you finished off with a relatively intelligent statement.


----------



## Whiskers (26 February 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Due to what? Just wondering...
> 
> Oil use at the alumina plant???




Not exactly sure it was a single source Smurf, but the power station and alumina plant were mentioned.  

A couple of friends used to live just north west of Gladstone and the fruit industry there had a lot of problems from sulphur residue settling in the area on the prevailing south east winds. It got a bit of a hot issue in the 1990's. But I haven't had much info since.


----------



## Kimosabi (27 February 2008)

I'm still wondering why people think putting poison in our Drinking Water is a Good Thing.

hhhmmmm, maybe it's the Sodium Fluoride they consumed in the drinking water that ate out the intelligence part of their brain...


----------



## freddy2 (27 February 2008)

Julia said:


> If we were to accept your argument, could you comment on why you would feel it is acceptable to force fluoride on those who do not want it (regardless of their reasons), rather than subsidise  or entirely pay for the cost of providing a personal supply of fluoride to those who do wish to consume it.
> I am quite happy for my tax dollars to go to providing a free supply of fluoride tablets for any Queenslander who wishes to add it to their drinking water.
> 
> For me this comes down to a moral argument as much as anything else.
> ...




Options:
1) No fluoride in water supply, government does nothing for anyone
2) No fluoride in water supply, government pays for fluoride treatment for those who want it
3) Fluoride in water supply, government does nothing for those who don't want fluoride in water supply
4) Fluoride in water supply, government pays for people who don't want fluoride in water supply.

Best option = benefits - costs (in terms of $, health outcomes, however you want to measure it)
So obviously the government has decided that the best option for society is 3).

And just like for immunisations this does not mean there will be no negative effects, just that comparatively society is better off with water fluoridation.


----------



## Kimosabi (27 February 2008)

freddy2 said:


> Options:
> 1) No fluoride in water supply, government does nothing for anyone
> 2) No fluoride in water supply, government pays for fluoride treatment for those who want it
> 3) Fluoride in water supply, government does nothing for those who don't want fluoride in water supply
> ...



You make it sound so REASONABLE to put poison in the water.

How about doing some research on the origin and people behind Water Fluoridation...

*The Fluoride Deception*

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


----------



## freddy2 (27 February 2008)

Kimosabi said:


> You make it sound so REASONABLE to put poison in the water.
> 
> How about doing some research on the origin and people behind Water Fluoridation...




The people behind water fluoridation seem to be dentists, epidemiologists, and government beurucrats amongst others. Why don't you explain who you think are behind it. I don't see some great conspiracy just people trying to improve society by reducing dental caries.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation :

While the use of fluorides for prevention of dental caries was discussed in the 19th century in Europe,[6] community water fluoridation in the United States owes its origin in part to the research of Dr. Frederick McKay, who pressed the dental community for an investigation into what was then known as "Colorado brown stain."[7] In 1909, of the 2,945 children seen by Dr. McKay, 87.5% had some degree of stain or mottling. All the affected children were from the Pikes Peak region. Despite having a negative impact on the physical appearance of their teeth, the children with stained or mottled teeth also had fewer cavities than other children. McKay brought the problem to the attention of Dr. G.V. Black, and Black's interest into the Colorado stain led to greater interest throughout the dental profession.

Initial hypotheses for the staining included poor nutrition, overconsumption of pork or milk, radium exposure, childhood diseases, or a calcium deficiency in the local drinking water.[7] In 1931, researchers from the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) finally concluded that the cause of the Colorado stain was a high concentration of fluoride ions in the region's drinking water (ranging from 2 to 13.7 ppm) and areas with lower concentrations had no staining (1 ppm or less).[8] Pikes Peak's rock formations contained the mineral cryolite, one of whose constituents is fluorine. As the rain and snow fell, the resulting runoff water dissolved fluoride which made its way into the water supply.

Dental research then moved toward determining a safe level for fluoride in water supplies. The research had two goals: (1) to warn communities with a high concentration of fluoride of the danger, initiating a reduction of the fluoride levels in order to prevent the Colorado stain, currently known as dental fluorosis, and (2) to encourage communities with a low concentration of fluoride in drinking water to increase the fluoride levels in order to help prevent tooth decay.

The classic epidemiological study to attempt to determine the optimal level of fluoride in water was led by Dr. H. Trendley Dean, a dental officer of the U.S. Public Health Service, in 1934.[9][10] His research on the fluoride - dental caries relationship, published in 1942, included 7,000 children from 21 cities in Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The study concluded that the optimal level of fluoride which minimized the risk of severe fluorosis but had positive benefits for tooth decay was 1 part per million (ppm). In 1939, Dr. Gerald J. Cox[11] conducted laboratory tests on fluoride and suggested adding fluoride to drinking water (or other media such as milk or bottled water) in order to improve oral health.[12] In 1937, dentists Henry Klein and Carroll E. Palmer had considered the possibility of fluoridation to prevent cavities after their evaluation of data gathered by a Public Health Service team at dental examinations of Native American children.[13] In a series of papers published afterwards (1937-1941), yet disregarded by his colleagues within the U.S.P.H.S., Klein summarized his findings on tooth development in children and related problems in epidemiological investigations on caries prevalence.

In the mid 1940s, four widely-cited studies were conducted. The researchers investigated cities that had both fluoridated and unfluoridated water. The first pair was Muskegon, Michigan and Grand Rapids, Michigan, making Grand Rapids the first community in the world to modify its fluoride levels in drinking water to benefit dental health on January 25, 1945.[14] Kingston, New York was paired with Newburgh, New York.[15] Oak Park, Illinois was paired with Evanston, Illinois. Sarnia, Ontario was paired with Brantford, Ontario, Canada.[16] The research found a decrease in the incidence of tooth decay in cities which had added fluoride to water supplies.


----------



## Whiskers (27 February 2008)

freddy2 said:


> The people behind water fluoridation seem to be dentists, epidemiologists, and government beurucrats amongst others. Why don't you explain who you think are behind it. I don't see some great conspiracy just people trying to improve society by reducing dental caries.
> 
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation :




Freddy, I grew up with that attitude for a long time, because I trusted and believed what was advertised about fluoride toothpaste.

What I did when confronted with information that went severely against the grain of what I had been led to believe, I adopted an objective position to research the issues. You should also take an objective, as opposed to subjective search of the issues, otherwise you will be among the coming minority who will suffer from the effects in ignorance.

Freddy, the bit you selected and pasted from wiki was under the heading, *History* It is just that, hiostory.

If you read the whole page starting from the top, a normal, rational person would at least start to get some concerns about the safety of fluoride.



> Water fluoridation
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.*
> ...




There is the first clue freddy, Fluoride is a toxic by product of a number of industries including the manufacture of fertiliser.

Then further down the page...



> *Malfunctions in water fluoridation equipment*
> Water fluoridation equipment has, on occasion, malfunctioned in the United States. Perhaps the worst incident in the United States occurred in Hooper Bay, Alaska in 1992. When fluoridation equipment failed, a large amount of fluoride was released into the drinking water supply and *296 people were poisoned; 1 person died*,[26] marking the first reported death due to fluoride toxicity caused by drinking water from a community water system.[27]




Freddy, on the issue of 'conspiracy' and 'people just trying to improve society', you should should research the recall and banning of numerous drugs and products produced by industry in the name of trying to improve society. A notable recent example is asbestos produced by Hardies and proven that they not only should have done the work to prove it safe, but actually did their level best to hide the truth so they could make huge amounts of money out of a resource they had. 

And you have the audacity to suggest that some people, organisations and businesses don't conspire to expand their own income and profits at the expense of the community. 

Try this for a quick search of banned drugs created by companies supposedly to improve society, err to fatten their own wallets. http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/ed_outreach/health-safety/drug_testing/banned_drug_classes.pdf


----------



## Kimosabi (27 February 2008)

freddy2 said:


> The people behind water fluoridation seem to be dentists, epidemiologists, and government beurucrats amongst others. Why don't you explain who you think are behind it. I don't see some great conspiracy just people trying to improve society by reducing dental caries.




If you bother to watch the video's that I posted, they tell you who was behind the concept of putting Fluoride in your drinking water.

The video clearly identify's the Atomic and Aluminium industries that funded dodgy research as the main drivers of putting industrial waste at profit, into your drinking water...


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 February 2008)

freddy2 said:


> In 1931, researchers from the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) finally concluded...



Isn't an Alcoa study into fluoride a bit like a Shell study into the environmental effects of oil drilling or a Philip Morris study into the health effects of smoking? Vested interest...


----------



## Julia (27 February 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Isn't an Alcoa study into fluoride a bit like a Shell study into the environmental effects of oil drilling or a Philip Morris study into the health effects of smoking? Vested interest...



Yes, exactly.  
What's the bet that Alcoa et al have made generous donations to the appropriate political parties?


----------



## freddy2 (28 February 2008)

And don't forget the self-interested dentists that want fluoride in the water. Oh, but that's not right they actually lose business from the reduction in dental caries. Guess the self-interest conspiracy theory isn't very logical. Would a company such as ALCOA with $30.4 billion revenue participate in a conspiracy to fluoridate water for miniscule amounts of money (million or 2) - I think not.


----------



## Whiskers (28 February 2008)

freddy2 said:


> And don't forget the self-interested dentists that want fluoride in the water. Oh, but that's not right they actually lose business from the reduction in dental caries. Guess the self-interest conspiracy theory isn't very logical. Would a company such as ALCOA with $30.4 billion revenue participate in a conspiracy to fluoridate water for miniscule amounts of money (million or 2) - I think not.




freddy, you don't know Braceface do you?

You obviously haven't read all the research posted here or watched the video's posted above.

Two obvious points freddy.

Firstly, all the evidence does not support a significant, if any reduction in dental caries. But for the sake of arguement, I go with the assumption that children raised on fluoridated water have less caries. What the research also says it that fluoridation increases the incidence of fluorosis, causes teeth to become harder and more brittle, consequently the outer enamel layer can split and even fall completely off. The obvious financial benifit for dentists is they get to perform much more fissure crack sealing, whitening and broken teeth repairs, caps, etc.

Secondly, companies that produce fluoride by-products face enormous costs to safely store or dispose of fluorine/fluoride under EPA standards. Their motivation is simple. Convince people it's good for teeth to get it put in toothpaste and fluoridated water supplies. What better way to get rid of industrial waste by spreading it all over the country in small amounts... and get paid for doing it.

It's really not that hard to work out, freddy. Any... well almost any blind freddy can see that.


----------



## freddy2 (28 February 2008)

Whiskers said:


> freddy, you don't know Braceface do you?
> 
> You obviously haven't read all the research posted here or watched the video's posted above.
> 
> ...




I can just see the dentists getting together and saying - "Well a cost/benefit analysis has shown we can earn more money if water is fluoridated, so get out there and convince everyone to fluoridate the water. What we lose out in doing less fillings we can make up with treating fluorosis." - LOL

And what percentage of fluoride waste are these companies able to rid themselves of due to water fluoridation? It would be so insignificant (<1%) that it makes the claim that ALCOA conspires to have water fluoridated totally incredible.

To believe that there is a conspiracy of self interest between dentists and the aluminum industry to have water fluoridated is ridiculous. Much, much more likely is that dentists, epidemiologists and assorted health officials believe that comparatively water fluoridation benefits society.


----------



## Whiskers (28 February 2008)

freddy2 said:


> I can just see the dentists getting together and saying - "Well a cost/benefit analysis has shown we can earn more money if water is fluoridated, so get out there and convince everyone to fluoridate the water. What we lose out in doing less fillings we can make up with treating fluorosis." - LOL
> 
> And what percentage of fluoride waste are these companies able to rid themselves of due to water fluoridation? It would be so insignificant (<1%) that it makes the claim that ALCOA conspires to have water fluoridated totally incredible.
> 
> To believe that there is a conspiracy of self interest between dentists and the aluminum industry to have water fluoridated is ridiculous. Much, much more likely is that dentists, epidemiologists and assorted health officials believe that comparatively water fluoridation benefits society.






freddy, are you so niave or what! 

Do you mean to tell me you have never heard of a case of doctors, dentists, hospitals etc performing unnecessary surgery, writing un-needed prescriptions for drug use, overservicing patients or bulk billing none existant patients and any number of other wroughts to make a few extra dollars? 

Nursing homes have been in the news often for collecting as much as they could for patients and providing shockingly poor care. 

Do you mean to tell me you have never heard of public officials on the take from business. Hell man every state has some politician or public official charged with corruption, negligence professional misconduct or the like!?

Freddy, when your talking US$30k or so (reported recently) for a tanker load that is a lot of dough they can make whereas the best they could do before was try to sneak in down a rain water pipe somewhere for naught.


----------



## chops_a_must (28 February 2008)

I think there are a lot of people on here Whiskers that would take great offence to what you have insinuated here.

I don't believe it is rational to think that every public servant is on the take. Health officials primarily get into that industry because they care about people.

It's like saying all teachers have no interest in education or in helping kids. Absolutely preposterous.


----------



## Whiskers (28 February 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> I think there are a lot of people on here Whiskers that would take great offence to what you have insinuated here.




I don't think so chops. Notice I was talking in past tense... referring to the few that have been caught out doing the wrong thing.



> I don't believe it is rational to think that every public servant is on the take. Health officials primarily get into that industry because they care about people.
> 
> It's like saying all teachers have no interest in education or in helping kids. Absolutely preposterous




I think it has been pretty clear that freddy led the issue onto vested interests. The vested interests had been spelt out in much of the previous posts and videos kimosabi recently posted. 

I have often said that a lot of health professionals are against the use of fluoride and that obviously implies that most are doing the right thing.

If it wasn't clear for the casual visitor to this thread, I'll emphasise that most professionals do the right thing or at least do as their superiours order. However, in any industry or organisation there are invariably some who seek to further their own interest as opposed to acting in the true spirit of their job and responsibilities, the small minority. 

But as has been pointed out some lobby groups have powerful backing... eg the american gun lobby... fluoride is clearly one with some big money corporate industries behind them, and that invariably corrupts some people, usually in influencial places. It is these few in particular and often you will get passive followers who also take advantage of the situation just because it's there.

Youre not going to try to tell me that no professional ever did the wrong thing are you?

Here in Qld the Health Dept (heirachy) is on the nose with numerous blunders of professional incompetance. The Dr Patel fiasco here in Bundaberg, similar incidents in three or four other hospitals and now there is another case of them hiring another doctor with a crook record.

Just today in the Qld parliament it was emphasised that a lot of professionals have left the QDPI in particular because they were being told to do things and make reports that went against their experience and research to further a political objective.


----------



## treefrog (28 February 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> I think there are a lot of people on here Whiskers that would take great offence to what you have insinuated here.
> 
> I don't believe it is rational to think that every public servant is on the take. Health officials primarily get into that industry because they care about people.
> 
> It's like saying all teachers have no interest in education or in helping kids. Absolutely preposterous.




often agrees with chops but finds the whiskers point fair and reasonable this time


----------



## treefrog (28 February 2008)

freddy2 said:


> The people behind water fluoridation seem to be dentists, epidemiologists, and government beurucrats amongst others. Why don't you explain who you think are behind it. I don't see some great conspiracy just people trying to improve society by reducing dental caries.




freddy - ever wondered why majority of european countries won't have a bar of water fluoridation??


----------



## Kimosabi (28 February 2008)

treefrog said:


> freddy - ever wondered why majority of european countries won't have a bar of water fluoridation??




The stupidest part of the Water Fluoridation/Chlorination etc Debate is that the people who approved this monstrosity aren't just poisoning us, they're poisoning themselves and their families as well.

Many European countries ozonate their water as well instead of chlorinating.

Fluoride is the primary ingredient used in anti-depressants.
Chlorine is the primary ingredient used in chemical weapons.


----------



## Whiskers (28 February 2008)

Well, Qld Parliament is in the process of wrapping up for the night and this sitting session... and still no Fluoridation Bill passed. 

As the sitting timetable stands now, the next session is 11 to 13 March. With a 1/2 dozen bills on the adgenda ahead of it, I doubt it will get to resume the second reading there, unless they expedite it up the adgenga. The following session is 15 to 17 April.

So, we've got a bit more time to try to get this thing derailed to the scrap heap. 

Any new info that people come across, post it up and we'll see how useful it can be.


----------



## moneymajix (6 March 2008)

*Re: E-Petition*

*Please Support the E-Petition calling for a  water fluoridation referendum  in Queensland. *

Help fight forced water fluoridation by signing the E-Petition on the Queenland Parliament website ; please click on link below ( or paste into browser if not live )      * QUEENSLAND RESIDENTS ONLY*


http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_qld/CurrentEPetition.aspx?PetNum=1007 


The petition reads:"Queensland residents draws to the attention of the House the high level of public concern in relation to mandatory fluoridation of Queensland's potable water supplies.

Your petitioners, therefore, request the House to give the people of Queensland the opportunity for an informed choice by referendum on mandatory fluoridation, to be held prior to the debate on the bill."

Whilst this is not everything we would want, because a lost referendum can force people to consume fluoride against their will, it is the best opportunity to tell the Government how we feel. It is also an opportunity for people who believe in the rights of others to have a free choice, to also have their say, by supporting this petition.

The Principal Petitioner is Denis Connolly, 11 Dawson Road, Gladstone, Qld. 4680 and it will be sponsored into the Queensland Parliament by Independent member - Liz Cunningham MP.

This is very important - Please sign the petition NOW. 
Note:  The closing date is 21st March.  If you are against Water fluoridation, add your signature now.


info@qawf.org


----------



## Kimosabi (8 March 2008)

Alex Jones sure isn't happy about Sodium Fluoride being put in his water.



And before you think he is a crackpot, go do some research, everything this guy says is documented...


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 March 2008)

Kimosabi said:


> Chlorine is the primary ingredient used in chemical weapons.



And table salt.

Agreed with much of what has been said on this thread but just because a chemical has a bad or otherwise questionable use doesn't automatically mean the chemical itself is automatically bad in _any_ application.

Cars, electricity and water itself cause quite a few deaths. That doesn't make them bad as such. 

Ozone is toxic by the way.


----------



## doctorj (8 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Ozone is toxic by the way.



So is oxygen at high enough concentrations


----------



## prawn_86 (9 March 2008)

Isnt every element in the periodic table toxic/dangerous in some form/dosage or another?


----------



## Julia (23 March 2008)

An article in today's "Sunday Mail" says The Australian Beverages Council has asked Food Standards Australia New Zealand for permission to add fluoride to bottled water and water coolers.

What, then, are people who do not want to consume fluoride supposed to do if they cannot afford a reverse osmosis filtration system (about $1000) and have no capacity for rainwater tanks?

I suggest others who are against fluoride should make their protests to both The Australian Beverages Council (Google brings up their Contact address) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (ditto with Google).


----------



## Whiskers (1 April 2008)

Julia said:


> An article in today's "Sunday Mail" says The Australian Beverages Council has asked Food Standards Australia New Zealand for permission to add fluoride to bottled water and water coolers.




Yeah, I saw that julia. It looks like a push to dispose of fluoride from industrial waste further around the world since more places in the USA in particular are turning fluoridation off. From what I am finding most if not all new fluoridation plants are in states where it has been forced with legislation as in Qld. It's not unlike many drugs that the USA ban, but the manufacturers then turn to other countries to dump the stuff. Watching with interest.



prawn_86 said:


> Isnt every element in the periodic table toxic/dangerous in some form/dosage or another?




Prawn, what you say is true as a loose generalisation. But such generalisation tends to be dismissive of the intrinsec danger and toxicity of many of those elements or compounds of, some of which are banned from use such as asbestos, other extremely dangerous elements such as products of uranium, not no mention the S7 POISONS of which concentrated fluoride is included.

There is one quality that makes *fluoride intrinsictly toxic and more dangerous* than others, and , ie fluoride does not evaporate off in steam like other elements. It concentrates in the residue in the container.This is a particular concern with cooking and processed foods made from boiled down water bases. 

It is even a problem with natural fluoride in artesian water in outback Qld. The QDPI warns people to test the water for fluoride and empty out troughs regularly rather than top up to dispose of the concentrated fluoride, because evaporation lowers water levels and by topping up the trough, the fluoride concentration increases to a point where it kills and seriously maims livestock. 

In the US cattle have been severly affected by airborne fluoride settling on pasture. Graziers have won significant settlements which included buying out of their farms.

I posted much earlier in the thread that Europe was avoiding produce from California because of the high fluoride residues.

The other important issue that makes *fluoride intrinsictly toxic and more dangerous* is there is no cure for overdosing fluoride. It is irreversable. You are stuck with the adverse effects and a lower quality of life until you die. 

Even the WHO and the US authorities say while there seems to be some benifit in preventing too decay, there is a greatly disproportionate lack of research into the side effects of fluoridation. There is also increasing evidence showing questionable advantages of fluoridation.

The Qld government regularly uses the catch cry that there is no credible evidence that fluotidation is harmful. So that begs one look at the credability and vested interests in their own evidence.

The main research in Australia quoted to measure cavities is _The child dental health survey, Australia 2002_. This is carried out by the Australian Research Center for POPULATION ORAL HEALTH (ARCPOH) in the School of Dentistry at the University of Adelaide.

What is not published with the report is that The University of Adelaide School of Dentistry is sponsored by Colgate. 

The other point is the full name of the report which is also not published probably it's a dead give away for the motivation of the report. The full report name is _Water fluoridation and childrens dental health - The child dental health survey, Australia 2002._

When one reads the full report including the paragraph about the qualifications of the data by the researchers and why NSW figures weren't included that time, ( Post 240 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9128&page=12) and since the QLD gov makes a big issue of credability, their main source of data... a report by a university sponsored by the fluoride industry and with a vested interest in promoting fluoridation... has to be of dubious credability. 

But then that is why the Qld gov legislated forced fluoridation and indemnified everyone from prosecution and let the recourse fall back on the state. Otherwise, in a normal court of law their evidence would hardly be considered 'indipendent', rather it could be successfully challenged as being biased, tainted with sponsorship by the fluoride industry.


----------



## wayneL (19 April 2008)

I saw this image and thought some might appreciate it... or not.


----------



## SilverDollar (19 April 2008)

I have not read all entire lot of posts so sorry if I repeat.

Fluoridation History:  Some group of people in the world had very good teeth and doctors scientist wondered why...?  They found the community had a naturally high level of fluoride in the water.  So they applied this theory to the rest of us.

Dosage: The dose rate is very well controlled in your water system. Do not self medicate unless you are careful because a small amount of F is great a lot is very bad.

Removal (if think you have to, I don't): Buy an under sink reverse osmosis unit or maybe better a filter that is specific for fluoride. Each have limited life so you must check the swap out frequency or buy a F test kit so you can see if its still removing F.

Please don't start complaining about chlorine in your water.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> I saw this image and thought some might appreciate it... or not.



classic - 
so wayne is that julia in the orange pj's ?
and/or anna bligh in the role of bush ?


----------



## Yeti (19 April 2008)

SilverDollar said:


> I have not read all entire lot of posts so sorry if I repeat.




The following quote borrowed from the bottom of Whiskers' post (three posts back in this thread):



> If you think you can think about a thing, inextricably attached to something else, without thinking of the thing it is attached to, then you have a legal mind. (Thomas Reed Powell)




SilverDollar, by posting on this thread expressing a strong opinion whilst ignoring all earlier posts I think you may have just qualified for that legal mind....



> Please don't start complaining about chlorine in your water.




Not sure what you are trying to say here exactly, but of course we all know that without the Chlorine we would not have a potable water supply. Fluoride is an _additive_ that has nothing to do with purification of the water.

But thanks for the advice on reverse osmosis and the Fluoride test kit.


----------



## petervan (19 April 2008)

Are there people in hospitals from drinking fluoride long term and whats the death rate.I have never heard or seen effects of either side of the arguement.


----------



## treefrog (19 April 2008)

petervan said:


> Are there people in hospitals from drinking fluoride long term and whats the death rate.I have never heard or seen effects of either side of the arguement.




this from the mecola website: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...on-increases-lead-absorption-in-children.aspx

Fluoridation Increases Lead Absorption In Children  


The chemical most commonly used to fluoridate America's drinking water is associated with an increase in children's blood lead levels. Most studies that purport fluoridation's safety and effectiveness in preventing cavities use the chemical sodium fluoride. However, most communities inject cheaper silicofluorides (fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride) into their drinking water based on the theory that each chemical comes apart totally, so that freed fluoride can incorporate into tooth enamel.

However, the silicofluorides (SiF) do not separate completely, as sodium fluoride does, As a result, water treatment with silicofluorides functions to increase the cellular uptake of lead.

In research published in the International Journal of Environmental Studies (September 1999), Masters and Coplan studied lead screening data from 280,000 Massachusetts children. They found that average blood lead levels are significantly higher in children living in communities whose water is treated with silicofluorides. Data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III) and a survey of over 120,000 children in New York towns (population 15,000 to 75,000) corroborate this effect.

Masters and Coplan reported that some minorities are especially at risk in high SiF exposure areas, where Black and Mexican American children have significantly higher blood lead levels than they do in unfluoridated communities.

Silicofluorides are used by over 90% of U.S. fluoridated towns and cities. Ironically, children with higher blood lead levels also have more tooth decay (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 23/30, 1999 reviewed in a previous newsletter). 

So water fluoridation may prove to cause tooth decay rather than prevent it. This research is just another block stacked on a giant wall of evidence that proves fluoridation is neither safe nor effective -- no matter what fluoride chemical is used.

Lead poisoning can cause learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and at high levels, seizures, coma and even death, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Lead is a highly significant risk factor in predicting higher rates of crime, attention deficit disorder or hyperactivity and learning disabilities. Higher rates of violent crime and substance abuse in silicofluoridated communities were also found in research that is yet to be published.

Web sites: 


http://www.fluoride-journal.com/ 

http://www.cadvision.com/fluoride/

http://SaveTeeth.org/ 

http://sonic.net/~kryptox/fluoride.htm/ 

http://www.bruha.com/fluoride/html/f-_in_food.htm/

CONTACT: Paul Beeber, J.D., 
P.O. Box 263, Old Bethpage, NY, 18804-0263, phone, 516-433-8882, fax, 516-433-8932, NYSCOF@aol.com; or Professor Roger D. Masters, Ph.D., 603-646-2153, or fax, 603-646-0508, roger.d.masters@dartmouth.edu/

"17th International Neurotoxicology Conference Children's Health and the Environment," Little Rock, Arkansas, October 17-20, 1999 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

If you still don’t believe fluoride is a toxin that should be avoided not only in your water and toothpaste but also at your dentist, then I would recommend you look at the fluoride links on my "Links" tab at my home page


----------



## Whiskers (19 April 2008)

petervan said:


> I have never heard or seen effects of either side of the arguement.




Hi petervan.

Thanks for you interest.

I was in exactly the same position as you until Julia started this thread. I pretty much believed what the advertising was saying and stoked on plenty of fluoridated toothpaste all my life and never worried about gargling and swollowing a little. Fortunately for me, I have mostly drank non-fluoridated water.

Just out of curiosity I did some research, particularly into what the WHO, US Dental Association's, EPA, FDA and some other well respected (main stream) research was saying and noticed a distinct pattern of Fluoridation advocates selectively [mis]quoting research to favour their objective.

The common theme portrayed, often with advertising with government funds, by pro fluoridation advocates in the public service is that "there is no credible evidence to support the claims of adverse effects..." But importantly, these people won't have anything of conducting more research as the WHO and others clearly say is necessary to determine what exactly the safe level of fluoride is. 



> Are there people in hospitals from drinking fluoride long term and whats the death rate.




Yes, [premature] death is an uncurable certainty where naturally high fluoride exists in the water as in parts of China in particular and even in the case of livestock watered from some artesian water in western Queensland. There have been occasional deaths from overdosing malfunctions of fluoridation equipment and quite a few cases where dozens, even hundreds of people, including school children have become ill, some requiring hospitilisation.

But for the main part Fluoride is a slow, premature death by disrupting various natural chemical reactions thus effecting many organs of our body to not perform as efficiently or effectively.

Please take the time to browse back through the thread and discuss the concerns with your family and friends.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 April 2008)

Julia said:


> What, then, are people who do not want to consume fluoride supposed to do if they cannot afford a reverse osmosis filtration system (about $1000) and have no capacity for rainwater tanks?



Go to the nearest creek, river, dam or whatever and fill up a few barrels seems to be the only option. 

That's assuming, of course, that the creek etc hasn't dried up due to the drought, isn't polluted with something and that you have a car.


----------



## Happy (19 April 2008)

Distillation of water wouldn’t be as expensive as reverse osmosis gadget.


----------



## Kimosabi (10 June 2008)

*VIDEO:  Fluoride Deadly Poison*

VIDEO: Fluoride Deadly Poison

http://www.livevideo.com/video/Gate...3973CB912B60749AC/fluoride-deadly-poison.aspx


----------



## Yeti (10 June 2008)

*Re: VIDEO:  Fluoride Deadly Poison*



Kimosabi said:


> VIDEO: Fluoride Deadly Poison
> 
> http://www.livevideo.com/video/Gate...3973CB912B60749AC/fluoride-deadly-poison.aspx




This is excellent, thanks for posting Kimosabi.

I have lost touch a little with the latest developments in Queensland, but if I remember correctly fluoridation has now been approved. Does anyone know if Fluoride is being added to water supplies yet?


----------



## Julia (10 June 2008)

*Re: VIDEO:  Fluoride Deadly Poison*



Yeti said:


> This is excellent, thanks for posting Kimosabi.
> 
> I have lost touch a little with the latest developments in Queensland, but if I remember correctly fluoridation has now been approved. Does anyone know if Fluoride is being added to water supplies yet?



Yeti, the legislation has been passed but as far as I know it's not yet being added to the water.  I understand this will be done gradually, area by area.
No doubt the info would be available on Qld government's website.


----------



## Kimosabi (10 June 2008)

*Re: VIDEO:  Fluoride Deadly Poison*



Julia said:


> Yeti, the legislation has been passed but as far as I know it's not yet being added to the water. I understand this will be done gradually, area by area.
> No doubt the info would be available on Qld government's website.



There are some f^cked up things happening in the Queensland Government at the moment.

They have also been going through and banning a stack of the most effective medicinal herbs as well while poisoning your water...


----------



## rhyslivs (10 June 2008)

I am a new comer to this thread so i cannot be bothered reading it all but from the first few pages i read it seems no one really has a great understanding.

Fluoride naturally occurs in water, the concentration of fluoride depends on the location of the water source. 

European water is naturally high in fluoride hence they have no need to add it. 

Queensland water has almost no natural fluoride, however fluoride was added to Townsvilles water supply and it showed marked improvement in dental condition. This acted as a case study and it was found that it would be beneficial to add it to the rest of QLD's water supply.

The concentration of fluoride they intend to mix into QLD's water supply is similar to natural concentration occurrences in other parts of the world. I.e. Europe.

Im not sure why people get so worked up about something that occurs naturally in water and not all the other things that are added to water like chlorine etc..

Rhys


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 June 2008)

I'm just trying to work out why my water is so alkaline. It's probably always been that way here, I only moved in January this year, but it's off the scale of my fairly narrow range indicator. It's making keeping fish rather a challenge having to deliberately acidify the water just to get it back to neutral.

Anyone know if chlorine, fluoride etc affects the PH of the water? I'm going to take a sample and check but I doubt the water going into the treatment plant is so alkaline.


----------



## Whiskers (4 January 2009)

The Qld Fluoridation issue isn't going away.

It still hasn't got into my part of the state, but I've thoroughly read the legislation and all the advisory committee notes and these people are thinking along the same lines as me. 

There might just be an anomaly in Qld law for their campaign to win.




> *NEWS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE USE*
> 
> *4 January 2009*
> 
> ...


----------



## Julia (4 January 2009)

Whiskers, I received the same email.  Whilst it's a worthwhile effort, I don't see it having any effect.  All the ministers effectively have to do is to state that, yes, they have indeed thoroughly read and understood all the presented anti-fluoride information (which presumably they would say they have already done) and as a consequence still decided that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Can you really see them changing their minds at this stage?


----------



## Whiskers (5 January 2009)

Nah, I can't see the ministers voluntarily changing their minds.

If they can force a judicial review there's a better chance a judge could view all the evidence a bit more fovaurably in terms of risks and adverse consequences.

The other thing is I've heard the Nationals intend to allow better public input into the issue. Not sure what they mean by that, except they're assuming they'll win the next election.

But at the end of the day, it seems that many of the US cases where states or counties have ceased using the stuff, it has come about by public outrage over some misshap like an accidental (even minor) overdose or spillage that has affected people and has hit a strong enough chord with health professionals, parents of school children, media etc to overwhelm the pro fluoride 'it's safe... trust us' campaign.

It's surprising talking to people, some who have even come from fluoridated areas, that say 'but I've been drinking it all my life and I'm OK' ... but actually know precious little about it, particularly what the long term effects to look for, accept to say that 'if it wasn't safe the authorities wouldn't be using it'. rolleyes: again)

So I think as more people rate the issue a bit more highly and get better information than just trusting the government press, the better chance of getting it reversed.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 January 2009)

I shouldn`t feed the worriers but here is a website that has all the worries about fluoride one could ever need.Even articles about Queensland down lower.

http://www.dianabuckland.webs.com/


----------



## windy (17 February 2009)

I found in my local newspaper today an interesting "letter to the editor" regarding fluoride is poison.The article makes known that in the ACP newsletter of January 2009, quoting website
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/33574
Premier Anna Bligh is quoted as admitting that fluoride in tap water was something she was "instructed to do" by a UNited Nations policy.
"I certainly don't think fluoride is safe - and I know that it is a toxic poison - but my job is on the line. They gave me a script - and I have to say it to the media." the Premier said.
Nothing could be clearer than the immediately foregoing, in relation to who is really running this country.If this is the best the Premier can do, then she should resign.


----------



## Julia (17 February 2009)

windy said:


> I found in my local newspaper today an interesting "letter to the editor" regarding fluoride is poison.The article makes known that in the ACP newsletter of January 2009, quoting website
> http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/33574
> Premier Anna Bligh is quoted as admitting that fluoride in tap water was something she was "instructed to do" by a UNited Nations policy.
> "I certainly don't think fluoride is safe - and I know that it is a toxic poison - but my job is on the line. They gave me a script - and I have to say it to the media." the Premier said.
> Nothing could be clearer than the immediately foregoing, in relation to who is really running this country.If this is the best the Premier can do, then she should resign.



I find it difficult to believe Anna Bligh said that.  You need to quote the source of the quote, please.
She has been a fervent advocate for fluoride.


----------



## Panacea (17 February 2009)

windy said:


> Premier Anna Bligh is quoted as admitting that fluoride in tap water was something she was "instructed to do" by a UNited Nations policy.
> "I certainly don't think fluoride is safe - and I know that it is a toxic poison - but my job is on the line. They gave me a script - and I have to say it to the media." the Premier said.
> If this is the best the Premier can do, then she should resign.




The link you mentioned makes no reference to Anna Bligh.

She is, however, quoted elsewhere as saying "It is time to stop being superstitious and to look at the science. It is compelling evidence that fluoride works. All of the nonsense about fluoride making you glow in the dark belongs to the Queensland of the last century."

and...

"There is no evidence anywhere in Australia, where we have had fluoride for 30 and 40 years, to demonstrate that there is any health problem or poses any sort of risk."

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2007/12/06/5714_gold-coast-top-story.html


----------



## metric (15 May 2009)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25486488-1248,00.html

fluoride supplier has 'get out clause'

Queensland residents given an overdose of fluoride in drinking supplies

AAP
May 15, 2009 11:07am
Text size 


LAWS introducing fluoride to Queensland's water supply contained a clause banning legal action for compensation if problems should arise. 

Lawyer Mark O'Connor, of Bennett and Philp Lawyers, revealed the clause while demanding that the Queensland Government should pay for medical tests for Brisbane residents affected by a fluoride bungle.


----------



## DB008 (6 August 2010)

got forwarded this one the other day.

Scroll down about a third of the way, left hand side task bar.

http://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/

Ok, now, l know that it's Today Tonight, but l think that this is one of their better ones.


----------



## Whiskers (11 February 2011)

Thought I'd bump this thread again. 

Got an email (below) indicating the momentum is starting to gather against fluoridation or at least the level of fluoridation. I haven't studied it carefully yet. 



> HELP NEEDED IN THE  FLUORIDATION FIGHT - PLEASE SEND A QUICK EMAIL
> 
> For those who are opposed to mandatory fluoridation,  could  you please send an email before the 14th Feb, via the  Fluoride Action Network ( FAN )  link provided in the email below for public comments  using the FAN letter (personalise if you wish ), or send an email direct to the US Department of Health and Human Services.  Either sign in via    http://fluoridealert.org/fan-comments.html   OR email your own email  direct to  CWFcomments@cdc.gov
> 
> ...





The following was attached - Fluoride Action Network, Bulletin, February 9, 2011. 




> 2011 is turning out to be a momentous year for those who wish to see an end to water fluoridation worldwide. The practice seems to be crumbling before our eyes. Each day seems to bring news of another victory or another initiative being taken to end fluoridation in cities, states and provinces in North America.
> 
> It's up to all of us to grasp this historic moment and let the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) know that its proposal of 0.7ppm fluoride in water is still too high and that fluoridation should end now. To sign-on in support of FAN's comments, go to http://fluoridealert.org/fan-comments.html. HHS is accepting public comments on its proposal up to February 14, so please send your comments before then. Over 3,000 sign-on messages have already been sent. But we need many more (maybe a 100 times more).
> 
> ...


----------



## OzWaveGuy (20 February 2011)

I'm surprised that this thread doesn't get more attention in this forum.....the fluoride poisoning of the water supplies and the fluoride additives to food products has been investigated enough to warrant immediate action by governments to stop the use of fluoride (aka an industrial waste that is corrosive and highly toxic).

I guess it's because fluoride is considered a “nutrient” by Government health organisations. 

Yet the warning lables are clear on toothpaste - it's a poison ...at least in the US - and apparently ok for your child to ingest it here in Australia - so no need for warning labels like this...







Many reverse osmosis systems can remove fluoride and switching to fluoride free toothpaste are simple steps most people can take. I have taken these steps to reduce the fluoride risks but it won't stop the fluoride being used in food.

It also surprises me that so many Climate extremists are crying foul of "deadly" CO2 yet aren't active trying to stop the obvious poisoning of humans and the environment - perhaps it's because there's no hype from the lamestream media or there's no money behind the elimination of fluoride, go figure.

FIRE WATER: Australia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace (Part 1 of 9)
[Youtube]6SMKemanUQ8[/Youtube]

So who had this billiant idea to fluoridate water? I think it was these people...The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride's supposed effect on children's teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" by Joseph Borkin.)


----------



## Julia (20 February 2011)

Oz, I agree with you, but all the uprising and furious protests, at least here in Qld,
have been utterly pointless.  The government has just ignored them and gone ahead with fluoridating the water.   It hasn't reached where I live yet, but when it does I'll use tank water instead, though that's less than convenient.


----------



## Ruby (20 February 2011)

Thank you for this illuminating video OzWaveGuy.  The knowledge that the fluoride compounds added to our drinking water are poisons, that they do not prevent dental caries (a problem caused by poor nutrition and lack of dental hygiene - which some people like to overlook), and that they have detrimental effect on the human body, has been known for years.   I first became interested in the matter more than 30 years ago when living in London and there was a move afoot to fluoridate the Thames water supply, and read what was available at the time.   

What astounds me is that governments are still doing it, with all this information available, and refusing to listen to reason.  I was one of the thousands who wrote letters of protest to the Queensland government about it, with no effect.   I once cornered Kate Jones (minister for climate change now but I thing she was something to do with water fluoridation at the time) at a street market, and she absolutely refused to even have a discussion with me on the subject.  Her face was set in a blank stare and she spouted the usual robotic answers without listening to a word I said.   Her sidekick, the uselsess Murray Watt was there mouthing the same platitudes.  

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but the blatant lies that are spread about the safety and 'necessity' of this poison in our drinking water often make me wonder what is behind it all!!    For the record, none of my children ever drank fluoridated water in the time they lived with me ( first 20+years) and none had a filling in that time.

Dental caries is *not *a fluoride deficiency disease - as has been suggested by some posters in this forum.


----------



## motorway (20 February 2011)

Ruby said:


> Dental caries is *not *a fluoride deficiency disease - as has been suggested by some posters in this forum.





''In the 1920′s and 30′s Dr May Mellanby conducted diet trials to determine the effect of vitamin D and nutrition on the development of tooth decay.  Importantly, these trials were conducted in resident hospitals and orphanages, which allowed precise control over food intake.

Compared to the Standard Diet of the day, Dr Mellanby obtained remarkable results with the Mineralizing Diet.  Over a six month period, those children following the Mineralizing Diet experienced very few new cavities, with the widespread arrest and healing of pre-existing decay, while those children on the Standard Diet continued to developed more new cavities with no healing.''


Link to the study

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2456958/pdf/brmedj07730-0003.pdf

Sir Edward Mellanby, GBE, KCB, MD, FRCP, FRS (8 April 1884 – 30 January 1955) *discovered vitamin D* and the role of the vitamin in preventing rickets in 1919.

He was born in West Hartlepool, the son of a shipyard owner, and educated at Barnard Castle School and Emmanuel College, Cambridge University, where he studied physiology.

Motorway


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 February 2011)

motorway said:


> ''In the 1920′s and 30′s Dr May Mellanby conducted diet trials to determine the effect of vitamin D and nutrition on the development of tooth decay.  Importantly, these trials were conducted in resident hospitals and orphanages, which allowed precise control over food intake.
> 
> Compared to the Standard Diet of the day, Dr Mellanby obtained remarkable results with the Mineralizing Diet.  Over a six month period, those children following the Mineralizing Diet experienced very few new cavities, with the widespread arrest and healing of pre-existing decay, while those children on the Standard Diet continued to developed more new cavities with no healing.''
> 
> ...






But they were malnourished pommies, victims of a class war, comrade.

I have never seen a pom who didn't put on a half a centimetre or so in height, develop better teeth and body skin and hygiene after migrating to Australia.

gg


----------



## Ruby (20 February 2011)

motorway said:


> ''In the 1920′s and 30′s Dr May Mellanby conducted diet trials to determine the effect of vitamin D and nutrition on the development of tooth decay.  Importantly, these trials were conducted in resident hospitals and orphanages, which allowed precise control over food intake.
> 
> Compared to the Standard Diet of the day, Dr Mellanby obtained remarkable results with the Mineralizing Diet.  Over a six month period, those children following the Mineralizing Diet experienced very few new cavities, with the widespread arrest and healing of pre-existing decay, while those children on the Standard Diet continued to developed more new cavities with no healing.''
> 
> Motorway




Thanks Motorway, this is a far more logical and scientific line of reasoning.   I know that recent studies of Vitamin D have greatly increased our knowledge of its efficacy and role in the human body, but it has long been known to help with the absorption of calcium.  That alone is sufficient reason to ensure an adequate intake.  I have to confess that until quite recently I was of the mistaken opinion that a daily dose of sunshine was all that was needed.  Your posts, and other reading have helped to educate me.

But............ it's far too easy to mass-medicate the population, getting rid of industrial waste at the same time, than to expect / educate people to be responsible for their own health!!


----------



## DB008 (20 February 2011)

I filled in an 2GB online letter regarding Fluoride in our drinking water, with lots of useful info and links etc etc about 2 weeks ago. No reply.

How can we bring this to the attention of the public?


Interesting on USA TV


----------



## Calliope (20 February 2011)

In an effort to salvage my remaining teeth my dentist has prescribed a toothpaste called NeutraFluor 5000 Plus. Pretty impressive eh? 

I can understand his concern. Each tooth is a gold mine to him. In the last six months I have had three root canals and three crowns, and several minor fillings and two cleanings. About 12 hours of torture.


----------



## tothemax6 (20 February 2011)

Aye the fluoridization scheme is disgusting. The idea that the government has ANY right to control peoples consumption in ANY aspect whatsoever for their *own good* is monstrous (no, drugs are different - no one ever hurt _anyone else_ because they didn't get enough fluoride). 

The solution to this particular government imposition is simple - privatization of the water utilities. No company would spend money to implement a dosing system which its customers would object to. 

Regarding some specifics some people might not know. Fluoride is taken up into the teeth from a young age, increasing the strength of the teeth, and thus resistance to cavities. Sure that's all very good, but fluoride toothpaste does the same job as fluoride in the water. 
However, in the dental profession in the UK, a phenomenon known as the 'Birmingham Bomb' is well known. In Birmingham, where the water was fluoridized, this was taken by many a family to mean 'your kid does not need to brush his teeth anymore'. And true, the bacteria had a hard time getting through the super-hardened teeth - but if you don't brush the plaque away, it finds a way. The situation would then arise in which the kid had an apparently OK set of teeth, which were all rotten inside. One day, the kid would then bite down on something hard - and from 'Birmingham Bomb', you get the picture.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 February 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Aye the fluoridization scheme is disgusting. The idea that the government has ANY right to control peoples consumption in ANY aspect whatsoever for their *own good* is monstrous (no, drugs are different - no one ever hurt _anyone else_ because they didn't get enough fluoride).
> 
> The solution to this particular government imposition is simple - privatization of the water utilities. No company would spend money to implement a dosing system which its customers would object to.
> 
> ...




But they are pommies, you cannot extrapolate that to Australians. 

It would be like comparing the dental practices of the various Stans to Australian dental hygiene.

gg


----------



## OzWaveGuy (20 February 2011)

Julia said:


> Oz, I agree with you, but all the uprising and furious protests, at least here in Qld,
> have been utterly pointless.  The government has just ignored them and gone ahead with fluoridating the water.   It hasn't reached where I live yet, but when it does I'll use tank water instead, though that's less than convenient.




Right, it's the typical business as usual response - no response. If everyone sent a Notice to their water supply company that informs them that you would be recovering the costs to remove poisons from the water supply from the quarterly bill then a different repsonse may be received.


----------



## Ruby (20 February 2011)

The whole thing is made more insidious by the fact that the Bligh government passed legislation making it impossible to take any legal action against them should there be any adverse effects of the mass medication of our water.

This begs the question, "Why did they feel they needed to do that, if fluoride is so good for you"?  Do they know something they aren't telling us? Stupid question.......... they know what *WE *know but choose to indulge in a massive cover-up and keep promulgating the lie.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (20 February 2011)

DB008 said:


> Interesting on USA TV





Gotta love the spin - "too much of a good thing"

The real statement is: We're seeing real adverse affects of fluoride on peoples health especially if they are infants or children, so we've decided to reduce the fluoride levels.

In another ten years they'll repeat this and so on, until fluoride is completely removed - as well as the legal liability of the damage it has caused.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 February 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> The solution to this particular government imposition is simple - privatization of the water utilities.



Privatisation of utilities, especially water, opens up an entirely new set of problems. Using tank water for drinking would be the lesser of the evils...


----------



## OzWaveGuy (20 February 2011)

Ruby said:


> The whole thing is made more insidious by the fact that the Bligh government passed legislation making it impossible to take any legal action against them should there be any adverse effects of the mass medication of our water.




I haven't seen a copy of this particular legislation, but ultimately it is unlawful to harm another human being - simply drawing up legislation to protect the guilty doesn't void this fact. Under common law, this legislation wouldn't stand if consent was not given or it was withdrawn eg there is no form of contract or tacit agreement to agree to be ingested with poisons.


----------



## tothemax6 (20 February 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Privatisation of utilities, especially water, opens up an entirely new set of problems. Using tank water for drinking would be the lesser of the evils...



But note that a water tank is a private utility  .


Garpal Gumnut said:


> But they are pommies, you cannot extrapolate that to Australians.



I can and I do. I know of a few places (which I won't mention), where upon informing the residents "your kids teeth are now strengthened against decay automatically by the water they drink", one will definitely in the future hear of '<these places> bomb'.


----------



## DB008 (20 February 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Gotta love the spin - "too much of a good thing"
> 
> The real statement is: We're seeing real adverse affects of fluoride on peoples health especially if they are infants or children, so we've decided to reduce the fluoride levels.
> 
> *In another ten years they'll repeat this and so on, until fluoride is completely removed - as well as the legal liability of the damage it has caused.*




Yeah, l just did a quick google and found those vids - recent too.

I agree with your statement Oz.

Why the government is putting the big F into our drinking water is totally beyond me. Someone posted a youtube link previously in this thread and it has been stated that for fluoride to be effective, it is to be applied to the tooth directly (ie, gel, paste) not ingested (ie, in the water). 

Can you legally put a case forward against the state government in regards to making you take this substance (Fluoride), without your permission and without real scientific proof that it actually does more good than harm? (Julia?) 

As l asked before, what can we do as a group to get the attention of the media to get this issue some traction and make it known in the public domain?

Did a google search and clicked on the first sponsored link;


> When I think of fluoridation, two words come to mind: medical experiment. And the guinea pig is Y-O-U. That's right: Without any solid proof that ingesting fluoride was beneficial for your teeth-and with no safety tests conducted to determine its potential effects on the rest of your body - the government moved forward with the mass medication of the country's water supply.
> 
> Think about it: With the exception of fluoride, every other chemical added to tap water is for the purpose of improving the water's safety. Fluoride is the only chemical added for the purpose of medication. And just like all drugs doled out by Big Pharma, this one comes with a litany of potential side effects. The difference? There's no black box warning on your faucet like there is on a bottle of pills.
> 
> ...




Got the report, 3 page PDF
It's in the next post in this thread


----------



## DB008 (20 February 2011)

THE DOUGLASS REPORT

*The fluoride myth busted!*




> Visit us at www.DouglassReport.com.au Learn more aboutWilliam Campbell Douglass II,M.D.
> 
> The fluoride myth busted!
> 
> ...


----------



## Ruby (21 February 2011)

DB008 said:


> Can you legally put a case forward against the state government in regards to making you take this substance (Fluoride), without your permission and without real scientific proof that it actually does more good than harm? (Julia?)




This has been attempted - and failed.  There are a number of action groups - thousands of letters written - documents provided adequately substantiating the facts that a) fluoride is a poison and b) ingesting the stuff does *nothing *to prevent tooth decay.  The Bligh government just gave us the metaphorical finger.



DB008 said:


> As l asked before, what can we do as a group to get the attention of the media to get this issue some traction and make it known in the public domain?




It has already been tried.   Google some of the action groups and see just how much has been done.   Media not interested.  Perhaps they've have somehow been gagged by Bligh.   Mind you, the various action groups have not given up.   If you're interested in participating they would be glad to have you.


----------



## pixel (21 February 2011)

Methinks we're fighting well above our weight here.
Google steel and fluoride, and you will find how much fluoride affluent would have to be neutralised and safely disposed of. Consider the cost that would add to those poor industrial conglomerates.

And then, several decades ago, some bright spark came up with the brilliant plan to dispose of it all across the countries' lawns and gardens by diluting the affluent into every city's water supplies. Brilliant - hey?

Having travelled around a fair bit, I've lived in areas that did, as well as in areas that did not poison their citizens' water supplies. And I found out in a very painful way that my body knew the difference and let me know which tap water was poisoned and which was safe. The "signal" my body used were kidney stones, dozens of them, but only in areas of the former kind. 

I may be a slow learner, but in the end I did put 2 and 2 together and used a micro-filter that puts the tap water through a reverse osmosis filter, getting rid of those poisons. And guess what: In over 20 years, I haven't "given birth" to a single kidney stone. 
Some female friends, who know both kinds, confirmed that the term "given birth" is aptly chosen.

PS: Although I have made it a habit to tell every medical practitioner about my findings, not one of them has shown an interest to take the matter any further. If anything, their reaction is marked by curiosity; no one admits having heard this before; neither does anybody suggest I'm fibbing - against which I would have records anyway. Seems they simply "know" there is no way any research into this phenomenon would find funding.


----------



## prawn_86 (21 February 2011)

Cant say i've read much of this thread, but i grew up drinking rainwater in the country.

Have been living in cities for 6 years now drinking tap water and noticed no differences at all (positive or negative)


----------



## Whiskers (22 February 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> I haven't seen a copy of this particular legislation, but ultimately it is unlawful to harm another human being - simply drawing up legislation to protect the guilty doesn't void this fact. Under common law, this legislation wouldn't stand if consent was not given or it was withdrawn eg there is no form of contract or tacit agreement to agree to be ingested with poisons.




I think I might have posted the legislation way back in the thread, but basically it indemnifies the gov and water treatment operators against any action that is done according to the legislation.

I think there is still an overwhelming ignorance by most people about the problems and side effects of ingestion of fluoride, despite all the evidence. But similar to the slavery, female rights/vote, asbestos, to name a few where once the majority public opinion reached a critical balance like the current middle east revolts against dictatorships, then the flood gates will open for reform and reversal of some of these dubious, even hideous products and practices to happen.

In Qld in particular water availability and water quality has been an issue for some time. I made the point on the Shale Gas thread, that the practice of fracking looks like it will add fuel to the water quality lobby to turn the tide hopefully not to far down the track. 

Also, if Labor gets tossed out in NSW in March and Qld labor follows, although the LNP went along with the legislation, mainly under pressure from  John-Paul Langbroek I think the LNP (hopefully after JPL is ousted) will be an easier gov to have fluoridation dismantled under.


----------



## Whiskers (22 February 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> Cant say i've read much of this thread, but i grew up drinking rainwater in the country.
> 
> Have been living in cities for 6 years now drinking tap water and noticed no differences at all (positive or negative)




I was much the same until Julia started this thread. I lived mostly in rural areas and drank tank water and never thought much about water treatments in urban areas.

Interistingly, actually worringly a relative made a comment the other day at a function that they all had teeth fluoridation as kids, reckon it was fabulous for their teeth and didn't see any problem with fluoridation of water supplies.

I also think ignorance is bliss... they completely don't see the significant differance between getting a fluoride treatment at the dentist and fluoridation of the water supply and continuous ingestion of fluoride.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (22 February 2011)

Although some on this thread may believe Fluoride ingestion thru water supplies and  toothpaste is ok, the reality is that it isn't, esp if you have a child that decides to make a meal of bubble gum flavoured toothpaste...

One of the little-known facts about fluoride toothpaste, is that each tube of toothpaste - even those specifically marketed for children - contains enough fluoride to kill a child.

As detailed below, most "Colgate for Kids" toothpastes - with flavors ranging from bubble gum to watermelon - contain 143 milligrams (mg) of fluoride in each tube. This dose of fluoride is more than double the dose (60 mg) that could kill the average-weighing 2 year old child. It is also greater than the dose capable of killing all average weighing children under the age of 9.

Fortunately, however, toothpaste-induced fatalities have been rarely reported in the US. In a review of Poison Center Control reports between 1989 and 1994, 12,571 reports were found from people who had ingested excess toothpaste. Of these calls, 2 people - probably both children - experienced "major medical outcomes", defined as "signs or symptoms that are life-threatening or result in significant residual disability or disfigurement" (SOURCE: Shulman 1997).



​
Yet Australia doesn't require any such warning labels on toothpaste.


----------



## Ruby (22 February 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> Cant say i've read much of this thread, but i grew up drinking rainwater in the country.
> 
> Have been living in cities for 6 years now drinking tap water and noticed no differences at all (positive or negative)




That is no reason to remain complacent - or ignorant.   Just because there are no outward signs does not mean your health is not being compromised.   People who develop osteoporosis (for example) have no symptoms, while all the time their skeletons are being eroded and health severly compromised.

On the other hand, you may suffer minimal ill effects.   Does that mean you are happy to accept the immoral principle of mass-medication of the populace?  Of forced ingestion of a known poison?


----------



## Calliope (22 February 2011)

Fluoride and conspiracy theories;



> Water fluoridation
> Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Although almost all major health and dental organizations support water fluoridation, or have found no association with adverse effects, efforts to introduce water fluoridation meet considerable opposition whenever it is proposed. Since fluoridation's inception in the 1950s, opponents have drawn on distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science. Conspiracy theories involving fluoridation are common, and include the following:
> Claims that:
> Fluoridation is part of a Communist, Fascist or New World Order or Illuminati plot to take over the world. This notion is mentioned, with comical effect, in Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove.
> ...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories


----------



## OzWaveGuy (24 February 2011)

Calliope said:


> Fluoride and conspiracy theories;
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories




Gee, that explains it, Fluoride is perfectly safe now. Time to stock up on bubblegum flavored fluoride. Thanks Cal.


----------



## prawn_86 (24 February 2011)

Ruby said:


> Of forced ingestion of a known poison?




To be honest i really dont care as there is not much i can do about it. Chlorine is an extremely deadly chemical as a gas, but is safe (as far as i know) when combined with H2o. Basic chemistry


----------



## Calliope (24 February 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Gee, that explains it, Fluoride is perfectly safe now. Time to stock up on bubblegum flavored fluoride. Thanks Cal.




I made no comment. I am merely the messenger.


----------



## Ruby (24 February 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> To be honest i really dont care as there is not much i can do about it.




Everyone can do something!  You can become informed; you can add your name to the list of dissenters; you can filter your drinking water.

_"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."_ - _Edmond Bourke_



prawn_86 said:


> Chlorine is an extremely deadly chemical as a gas, but is safe (as far as i know) when combined with H2o. Basic chemistry




........ and basic chemistry also tells you that while some compounds of fluorine (the gas) are harmless, others, such as the ones added to our drinking water, are deadly poisons.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 February 2011)

Whiskers said:


> I made the point on the Shale Gas thread, that the practice of fracking looks like it will add fuel to the water quality lobby...



Adding fuel to the lobby maybe, but let's just hope it doesn't literally add fuel to the water...


----------



## DB008 (7 March 2011)

I have received a reply from the NSW Government Health. 

Enjoy!


View attachment Water Fuoride 101.pdf





> Dear Mr *********,
> I write in response to your inquiry via the NSW Health Website regarding water fluoridation.
> 
> NSW Health’s policy on water fluoridation is based on overwhelming conclusions, based on scientific evidence from major scientific bodies throughout the world that water fluoridation is:
> ...


----------



## pixel (7 March 2011)

Ruby said:


> Everyone can do something!  You can become informed; you can add your name to the list of dissenters; you can filter your drinking water.



totally agree; I speak out and relate my personal *negative* experiences on every suitable occasion.  And I filter all tap water, even if it's only used for cooking; when in the Country, I seek out facilities that have rainwater tanks.



> _"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."_ - _Edmond Bourke_



Evil flourishes even more where well-meaning amateurs force "good ideas" on the unsuspecting Public.



> and basic chemistry also tells you that while some compounds of fluorine (the gas) are harmless, others, such as the ones added to our drinking water, are deadly poisons.



And if fluorides had been beneficial for dental health, there would be evidence throughout the animal world, where animals would deliberately seek fluoride-enriched food. Evolution would have proved such diet to give them an edge to survive as the fitter group of related species.


----------



## Julia (7 March 2011)

Danny, it's the standard letter all of us who have protested against fluoridation of drinking water have received.

Much as I hate to admit it, I doubt there is much more you can do.  They have decided it will happen, even in the face of what you'd think was overwhelming community protest.

If you don't already have a rainwater tank, perhaps get one, or a filter that removes fluoride.

I hate being so defeatist, but simply can't think of anything more any of us can do except throw them out when you have a vote.


----------



## DB008 (8 March 2011)

*FIRE WATER: Australia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace (Part 1 of 9) *


Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6


Part 7


Part 8


Part 9



Julia, l have been looking at water filtration systems.
http://www.watershop.com.au/
http://www.alkaway.com.au/products-ro-overview.html


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (8 March 2011)

The issue that most people ignore is the taking away of human rights and the CHOICE of an individual to ingest what they choose.


----------



## Ruby (9 March 2011)

Thank you Dannyboy.  I had seen the first part of this doco before, and now I have seen all of it.  It is excellent.  No hysteria, just loads of scientifically backed up info.  I have always been opposed to water fluoridation, and this doco has served to reinforce that opposition as well as increase my knowledge.

I hope that all those people who have posted on this thread and said that they support fluoridation or don't care either way will watch it* right through*.  Please do yourselves a favour and *at least get informed*, even if you don't change your opinion.

Many who have been complacent may not realise that the fluoride compounds added to our water come straight from the smoke stacks to our water supply in drums marked "poison".   *We do not get **pharmecutical grade fluoride*, tested and approved by the TGA (as all other drugs have to be).  We get the raw industrial waste, contaminated with lead, mercury, cadmuim, arsenic, etc, etc.  Does that sound appetising?  Safe? Moral?

It should make everyone in the country very, very angry that we are being duped and lied to by our governments, and we are being forcibly poisoned by a toxic substance which accumulates in the body and has been proven to do nothing to prevent tooth decay.


----------



## DB008 (16 March 2011)

This was on the TEN News tonight. (16/03/11)

http://ten.com.au/ten-news-sydney.htm?movideo_p=44243&movideo_m=96837

Listen to what gets said during this segment -
"We've had Fluoride in the water for years." - 1 minute mark
"50% of under 6 year olds have tooth decay" - 1 minute 20 mark
Next comment all goes on about brushing teeth and being proactive in dental health. 

It's in black and white right there that Fluoride doesn't do anything for teeth.


----------



## Whiskers (16 March 2011)

DB008 said:


> This was on the TEN News tonight. (16/03/11)
> 
> http://ten.com.au/ten-news-sydney.htm?movideo_p=44243&movideo_m=96837
> 
> ...




It does harden tooth enamel. But this does not equate to decay resistance. On the contrary, hard teeth crack easier and let decay into the core of the tooth. You often won't know you have decay until your tooth outer hardened enamel collapses.

But even flouridation is no subsitute for good hygene and diet... without even considering the adverse effects from ingestion of the stuff.


----------



## Ruby (17 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> But even flouridation is no subsitute for good hygene and diet...




Amazing isn't it?  With all the argument raging over fluoride, this simple expedient seems to be forgotten.  Watching that Channel 10 clip I was horridied to learn of the large number of people who *don't *brush their teeth twice a day.


----------



## DB008 (17 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> It does harden tooth enamel.




What, fluoride? 

We (_*Yes, everyone*_), don't even know what *type *of Fluoride they are putting in the water? 



Is Sodium fluoride, Fluorosilicic Acid or Sodium Fluorosilicate put in our water?

Is it made in Australia, imported from Belgium or anywhere else?

Is it waste from commercial plants (ie; Incitec Pivot, Geelong fertiliser waste product)?

Is it specifically made for human consumption? 

We just don't know anything...


----------



## medicowallet (17 March 2011)

As someone with some idea of public health initiatives I find this topic quite amusing.

I read the first 2 pages and this last one.

1. People have a choice to drink the water. If they are concerned then they can purchase bottled water, or use tank water etc. I am sure that most people have no problem with topical application of fluoride on their skin (but the crackpots probably do)

2. I like the graph on the first 2 pages. I note that the comparison countries are all extremely high socioeconomic. I would assume that most of the benefit is in lower socioeconomic areas, in which Australia could benefit a lot.

3. There is a great decline in the graph, I wonder if this correlates well with fluoridated toothpaste availability to the masses.


I find the conspiracy theorists amazing, I function at a high level for long hours, and I was exposed to fluoridated drinking water for a long time. I also cannot recall any of my colleagues/friends etc acting strangely due to drinking water, nor do I notice any particular difference between the same people and their country counterparts who drink tank water.

Please, utilise the scientific studies available.

Are there any peer reviewed, replicatable studies showing any problems with fluoridated water?

It has been around for ages

Would not the conspiracy theorists, the passionate ones, have tried to identify real problems?

The evidence is out there.... you know the evidence for the efficacy, NOT for the mind control effects of fluoride.

Oh, btw a lot of people have tried things in the past which were WRONG (eg germans using fluoride (if this is actually true)). Chinese medicine etc has many examples.


----------



## Ruby (17 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Please, utilise the scientific studies available. .




Can you produce some?



medicowallet said:


> Are there any peer reviewed, replicatable studies showing any problems with fluoridated water? .




Are there any which prove it is safe?   The onus is on those who say it is safe and efficacious to prove it, not the other way around.  I assume you are a doctor, so you would know that the first rule of your profession is "first do no harm".  Can you prove that fluoride does no harm?



medicowallet said:


> The evidence is out there.... you know the evidence for the efficacy, NOT for the mind control effects of fluoride.




Again, where is the evidence?  There is no evidence that the incidence of dental caries is less in areas with fluoridated water than in areas with unfluoridated water.


----------



## medicowallet (17 March 2011)

Ruby said:


> Again, where is the evidence?  There is no evidence that the incidence of dental caries is less in areas with fluoridated water than in areas with unfluoridated water.




J Public Health Dent. 1989;49(5 Spec No):279-89.

Effectiveness of water fluoridation.

"Abstract
The efficacy of communal water fluoridation in reducing dental caries has been reviewed based on surveys conducted in the last decade of caries prevalence in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities in the United States as well as in Australia, Britain, Canada, Ireland, and New Zealand. The efficacy is greatest for the deciduous dentition, with a range of 30-60 percent less caries in fluoridated communities. In the mixed dentition (ages 8 to 12), the efficacy is more variable, about 20-40 percent less caries. In adolescents (ages 14-17), it is about 15-35 percent less caries. Current data on caries prevalence in adults and seniors are extremely limited and include several populations living in communities with higher than optimal fluoride levels. For these adults and seniors, a range of 15-35 percent less caries would also apply. Viewed in toto, the current data for children, adolescents, adults and seniors show a consistently and substantially lower caries prevalence in fluoridated communities. For an accurate measurement of the efficacy of water fluoridation in reducing dental caries, it is essential that only persons with a record of continuous or long-term residency in fluoridated versus nonfluoridated areas be included in such assessments. Because of the high geographic mobility in our society and the widespread use of fluoride dentifrices, supplements, and other topical fluoride agents, such comparisons are becoming more difficult to conduct. Accordingly, the effectiveness (rather than the efficacy) of water fluoridation has decreased as the benefits of other forms of fluoride have spread to communities lacking optimal water fluoridation."

That was just with a VERY quick pubmed search.

BMJ 2000; 321 : 855 doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7265.855 (Published 7 October 2000) 

"Results: 214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries. The range (median) of mean differences in the proportion of children without caries was −5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth. A dose-dependent increase in dental fluorosis was found. At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning. 

Conclusions: The evidence of a beneficial reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. There was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects. "



Ruby said:


> Are there any which prove it is safe?   The onus is on those who say it is safe and efficacious to prove it, not the other way around.  I assume you are a doctor, so you would know that the first rule of your profession is "first do no harm".  Can you prove that fluoride does no harm?




How many clinical trials have you conducted?
What type of trial would you consider for this?
What type of trial would a sceptic use to disprove the hypothesis?

It is far easier to prove that it is not safe than to prove, beyond a doubt that it is safe. 

It would only take one credible study to stop this entire debate. So where is this study? There have been decades of exposure with millions of people. Surely the question of its safety is stymied by the lack of evidence to the contrary, or perhaps you want something unreasonable like a 400 year history of water fluoridation results... sorry, but it just doesn't work that way.

So, please, show me a study that shows that the risk-benefit for the population is against water fluoridation.


----------



## Ruby (17 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> J Public Health Dent. 1989;49(5 Spec No):279-89.
> 
> Effectiveness of water fluoridation.
> 
> ...




These studies are scientifically flawed.  They mean nothing unless a comparative study was done of teeth in Townsville *before *fluoridation and *after *fluoridation.  Comparing Townsville and Brisbane is not comparing like with like.

Try reading this - just a *VERY *quick Google search...
http://www.abpac-australia.com/assets/fluorhoaxbox.pdf 
and I quote from the document........


> "The truth, which is not of interest to the Brisbane fluoride propagandists, is
> that in fluoridated *Perth *about 20 young children each week are having their
> teeth removed.
> The "West Australian", 24th July, 2004, published an article,
> ...






medicowallet said:


> J Public Health Dent. 1989;49(5 Spec No):279-89.
> It is far easier to prove that it is not safe than to prove, beyond a doubt that it is safe.



Yes, but the onus is *still *on the pro-fluoride lobby to prove it *is *safe.  They claim it is, but have provided  no proof.



medicowallet said:


> J Public Health Dent. 1989;49(5 Spec No):279-89.
> It would only take one credible study to stop this entire debate. So where is this study? There have been decades of exposure with millions of people.....



Yep.....and if you look through this thread you will find some referenced, but those who believe as you do have their heads firmly buried in the sand and will not read the credible studies.  Why do you think that most of Europe is *ceasing *fluoridation?



medicowallet said:


> J Public Health Dent. 1989;49(5 Spec No):279-89.
> So, please, show me a study that shows that the risk-benefit for the population is against water fluoridation.



There are plenty referenced in this thread and on the "Fire Water" video


----------



## Billyb (17 March 2011)

It's quite simple really. If you are in the minority (0.01%) and crackpot enough to think fluoridated water is causing you harm, then get a filter, or use a rainwater tank, or find your own source of water, or buy bottled water. Fluoridated water is a very effective public health measure (strong evidence for this) and without any real evidence against it's safe use, it's a cost to the rest of society (99.9%) to remove it.


----------



## DB008 (17 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> It's quite simple really. If you are in the minority (0.01%) and *crackpot enough to think fluoridated water is causing you harm*, then get a filter, or use a rainwater tank, or find your own source of water, or buy bottled water. Fluoridated water is a very effective public health measure (strong evidence for this) and without any real evidence against it's safe use, it's a cost to the rest of society (99.9%) to remove it.




please......

BELGIUM - Unfluoridated Water, Fluoridated Salt
DENMARK - Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt
FINLAND - Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt
FRANCE - Unfluoridated Water, Fluoridated Salt
GERMANY - Unfluoridated Water, Fluoridated Salt
GREECE - Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt
ICELAND - Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt
THE NETHERLANDS - Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt
NORWAY & all SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES - Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt
SWEDEN - Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt
SWITZERLAND - Unfluoridated Water, Fluoridated Salt



Billyb said:


> Fluoridated water is a very effective public health measure (strong evidence for this)...




Evidence please


----------



## DB008 (17 March 2011)

A Dentist debunks a common fluoride myth. 




(I think l've posted this before)
Doctor Exposes Fluoride as Poison


----------



## medicowallet (17 March 2011)

Ruby said:


> These studies are scientifically flawed.  They mean nothing unless a comparative study was done of teeth in Townsville *before *fluoridation and *after *fluoridation.  Comparing Townsville and Brisbane is not comparing like with like.
> 
> Try reading this - just a *VERY *quick Google search...
> http://www.abpac-australia.com/assets/fluorhoaxbox.pdf
> ...




1. The studies are NOT scientifically flawed. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me as to the method used, and what an appropriate study would look like, as you obviously proclaim to be proficient in conducting scientific studies. Or is that that the retort that is taught in www.fluoridekillsthemasses.com

2. There is no way anyone can ever guarantee that something is 100% safe, however the test of the hypothesis can be disproven with ONE credible study showing that it is unsafe, and that the risk outweighs the benefit. Please, I challenge you to show me this single study.

3. As for your VERY quick google search, please, which journal was this published in so that I may read the scientific report to which the PDF refers to. (I also like how you are comparing city to city, something you said should not be done, and for all intents and purposes you did not prove was done in the study I provided)


----------



## medicowallet (17 March 2011)

DB008 said:


> A Dentist debunks a common fluoride myth.
> 
> (I think l've posted this before)
> Doctor Exposes Fluoride as Poison




I just wasted 7 minutes of my life to listen to these two.

Neither said that Fluoride causes health concerns. I also believe that swallowing fluoridated water does provide some topical action, and this is obviously supported by studies which show improved dental health.

So please, provide some less sensationalist videos (referring to the second one) or ones that support your cause.


----------



## Whiskers (17 March 2011)

DB008 said:


> What, fluoride?




The scientific data from both sides recognise that over time fluoride does harden tooth enamel. That's the premise for wanting to use it.

The pro camp believes that can only be a good thing. I make the point that it can be a bad thing if the the enamel hardens beyond a certain point.

The logic is similar to the tensile and compressive strength in iron products. An average mild steel has good tensile and compression strength. It will bend and compress a little, maybe deform a little but stays in tact pretty well. Cast iron is more rigid. It has a pretty good strength to a point then it breaks and becomes useless. BUT cast iron is cheap and more resistant to rust than mild steel. 

My point is that our teeth are made a little soft and flexible for a reason... to withstand chewing.

The net result of too much fluoride on teeth is it overly hardens tooth enamel for the sake of helping to prevent rust (decay in those who don't practice proper dental hygiene), making teeth less flexible and more susceptible to breaking from chewing or impact.



> We (_*Yes, everyone*_), don't even know what *type *of Fluoride they are putting in the water?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I followed the legislation through the Qld Parliament and they had certain rather loose regulations... but at the end of the day if the process is not stringently checked by independent people, history shows that inevitably, private water authorities in particular, will take short cuts and source cheaper products where contaminates will be a more serious problem.


----------



## Ruby (17 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> It's quite simple really. If you are in the minority (0.01%) and crackpot enough to think fluoridated water is causing you harm, then get a filter, or use a rainwater tank, or find your own source of water, or buy bottled water..



Why should we have to?


> Fluoridated water is a very effective public health measure (strong evidence for this).



Where's the evidence?   There is none........   If it was an effective health measure, why are European countries discontinuing use?   Why don't people who have drunk fluoridated water all their lives have good teeth?   Why is it that a lot of people who have *never *drunk fluoridated water have perfect teeth?


> and without any real evidence against it's safe use,.............



There is lots........read some of the articles referenced in this thread for starters.


> .....it's a cost to the rest of society (99.9%) to remove it.



No, the cost is in putting the stuff *IN *the water!


----------



## DB008 (17 March 2011)

And from Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country




> Sweden
> 
> In 1952, NorrkÃ¶ping in Sweden became one of the first cities in Europe to fluoridate its water supply. It was declared illegal by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court in 1961, re-legalized in 1962 and finally prohibited by the parliament in 1971, after considerable debate.
> The parliament majority said that there were other and better ways of reducing tooth decay than water fluoridation. Four cities received permission to fluoridate tap water when it was legal.
> An official commission was formed, which published its final report in 1981. *They recommended other ways of reducing tooth decay (improving food and oral hygiene habits) instead of fluoridating tap water. They also found that many people found fluoridation to impinge upon personal liberty/freedom of choice, and that the long-term effects of fluoridation were not sufficiently known. They also lacked a good study on the effects of fluoridation on formula-fed infants.*




Highlighted here and also outlined in that TEN News Clip l posted yesterday, yet 30 years apart. Gee-wonder...





Whiskers said:


> I followed the legislation through the Qld Parliament and they had certain rather loose regulations... but at the end of the day if the process is not stringently checked by independent people, history shows that inevitably, private water authorities in particular, will take short cuts and source cheaper products where contaminates will be a more serious problem.




From Wiki.
Same page as above. 


> On May 2, 2009 an accident occurred at the North Pine Dam treatment plant where 300,000 litres of contaminated water was pumped into up to 4000 Brisbane homes in the northern suburbs of Brendale and Warner for three hours. The water contained 30 to 31 mg/L of fluoride instead of the maximum allowable 1.5 mg/L. Anna Bligh expressed her concerns stating "This is unacceptable and I, like other Queenslanders, have questions about it, and I'm not happy,".


----------



## Whiskers (17 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> ...swallowing fluoridated water does provide* some* topical action...




That's my main issue. It's far less effective than good dental hygene. It certainly doesn't provide adequate tooth protection alone, in the absence of good diet and dental hygene. 

It seems you are a medical professional, so I'd like to put a couple of questions to you.

I presume you except that above a certain level fluoride, even from natural sources, is toxic and can cause serious medical issues?

Why do you think fluoridation of water supplies is more effective in catching the minority who have poor dental hygene than providing or reinstating better public dental services?

Do you see any correlation between school dental services (and the lack of), availability of prompt public dental services and tooth decay?


----------



## Ruby (17 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> 1. The studies are NOT scientifically flawed.......



Yes they are.   How do you know that Townsville's teeth were not better than Brisbane's BEFORE Townsville's water was fluoridated?  Where is the scientific method in comparing two things which are different unless you do a 'before' and 'after' comparison?


----------



## medicowallet (17 March 2011)

Ruby said:


> Yes they are.   How do you know that Townsville's teeth were not better than Brisbane's BEFORE Townsville's water was fluoridated?  Where is the scientific method in comparing two things which are different unless you do a 'before' and 'after' comparison?




1. You have wrongly assumed that I got those statistics from Spencer, Davies and Stewart. So this Townsville/Brisbane thing is a strawman argument. Take the time to investigate the article before going off on a tangent.

2. Statistical analysis allows comparisons.

3. You fail to answer any of the other questions, perhaps you have seen the light, the futility and are calling it a day.

Your Mantra does not work when actually challenged with fact, and questioned for you to respond with logic does it now.


----------



## IFocus (17 March 2011)

I was drinking at the Gascoyne Junction hotel in the early 80's when I happen to run into the government dentist and his nurse. 

Asked him about fluoride as I knew it was a poison.

He told me that the WA desert aborigine communities that he visited that had fluoride he did very little dental work those with out usually spent a few weeks there. 

None of the communities were big on dental hygiene.


----------



## Ruby (18 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> 1. You have wrongly assumed that I got those statistics from Spencer, Davies and Stewart. So this Townsville/Brisbane thing is a strawman argument. Take the time to investigate the article before going off on a tangent.




Please point out where I have made that assumption.  

You should stick to the facts, but as you have no valid argument you are trying to obfuscate the matter by making silly accusations.  I suspect that you have not read very many studies or articles on the efficacy or otherwise of fluoride, or its dangers to health, but only those which support your view.

The assertion that the previously mentioned studies are flawed has been made by many reputable scientists, doctors and dentists.  Read some of the material.

There is nothing more to say to you on this matter, so you may have the last word if you wish - I won't respond to you.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (18 March 2011)

DB008 said:


> I have received a reply from the NSW Government Health.
> 
> Enjoy!




A belated response to this...

Thanks Danny

Since Dr Wright is so convinced that a S6 poison in the water supply is perfectly safe, you should reply and ask Dr Clive Wright to provide his response under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

....then watch him squirm - they'll never put their money where their mouth is.


----------



## Ruby (18 March 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> A belated response to this...
> 
> Thanks Danny
> 
> ...




What an interesting concept!!  How I would love to see it.


----------



## Ferret (18 March 2011)

Thought I’d share my experience on this.

Both my parents have suffered much tooth decay during their lives.  My father is a doctor and, based on his reading of medical literature, he had his children take a daily fluoride tablet from a young age.  This only stopped when fluoride was added to the water supply.

I am now in my fifties and have never had a cavity.  My siblings dental health is similar.  Our general health is also excellent.  

I haven’t read any reports on the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing tooth decay or the possible negative effects of prolonged fluoride consumption.  I don’t need to.  I have experienced first hand the benefit of fluoride and have suffered no negative effects over the long term.


----------



## medicowallet (18 March 2011)

Ruby said:


> Please point out where I have made that assumption.
> 
> You should stick to the facts, but as you have no valid argument you are trying to obfuscate the matter by making silly accusations.  I suspect that you have not read very many studies or articles on the efficacy or otherwise of fluoride, or its dangers to health, but only those which support your view.
> 
> ...




Ok, I accept your invitation to respond, and since you will not respond I will keep it civil 

Why are you referring to Townsville vs Brisbane? That is where you make assumptions and proclaim that the studies I put forward (quick pubmed searches) referred to this.

Also, I note that, even with your self acknowledged expertise in studies, failed to provide a single published study proving that the cost of fluoride outweighs its benefits. I have provided 2 studies proving that dental health is improved.

I have not read any published journal articles which are damning of fluoride. I have read many outrageous, unsupported claims by interest groups, but these have no evidence or reproducable statistics, as if there were, I am sure that they would have been posted by yourself.

All the best,

From the ever smiling and cavity free medicowallet


----------



## Whiskers (18 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> I was drinking at the Gascoyne Junction hotel in the early 80's when I happen to run into the government dentist and his nurse.
> 
> Asked him about fluoride as I knew it was a poison.




Thanks for sharing IFocus... and yes that was a typical anecdotal observation/report of the time and even now. But as a dentist, correct me if I'm wrong, he was not particularly qualified to notice any other health side effects from in this case indiscriminate fluoride dosage and diet... not to mention severe lack of medical and dental support in remote aboriginal areas to offsett the adverse effects of our (western) foods high in sugar and now recognised often low in nutrition that they were introduced too by us. 




Ferret said:


> Thought I’d share my experience on this.
> 
> Both my parents have suffered much tooth decay during their lives. My father is a doctor and, based on his reading of medical literature, he had his children take a daily fluoride tablet from a young age. This only stopped when fluoride was added to the water supply.
> 
> ...






Thank you for sharing too Ferret... but I'm curious about a few things:
How you know you have no negative side effects?
How do you know you dental health was attributed to fluoride and not good diet and dental hygene?
You say your father was a doctor, but had "suffered much tooth decay". I'm curious how a doctor, well versed in good diet and hygene (assuming he practiced what he was tought) could suffer much tooth decay. Did he (or you) investigate what caused this, eg some disease or genetic defect etc?



medicowallet said:


> *I have not read any published journal articles which are damning of fluoride.*




*medicowallet, can you eloberate here? *

*Are you referring to fluoridation or fluoride generally?* 

Also, have you missed my earlier query?




Whiskers said:


> That's my main issue. It's far less effective than good dental hygene. It certainly doesn't provide adequate tooth protection alone, in the absence of good diet and dental hygene.
> 
> It seems you are a medical professional, so I'd like to put a couple of questions to you.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ferret (18 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Thank you for sharing too Ferret... but I'm curious about a few things:
> How you know you have no negative side effects?



Because I have excellent health!



Whiskers said:


> How do you know you dental health was attributed to fluoride and not good diet and dental hygene?



Because my parents shared the same diet and dental hygiene practices.  The only difference was they didn't get fluoride when they were young.



Whiskers said:


> You say your father was a doctor, but had "suffered much tooth decay". I'm curious how a doctor, well versed in good diet and hygene (assuming he practiced what he was tought) could suffer much tooth decay. Did he (or you) investigate what caused this, eg some disease or genetic defect etc?



Because good diet and dental hygiene alone were not enough to prevent tooth decay in previous generations that grew up without fluoride.

Whiskers, when the right conclusion stares you in the face, why go looking for ways to try and prove it wrong?


----------



## Ruby (18 March 2011)

Ferret said:


> Thought I’d share my experience on this.
> 
> *I am now in my fifties and have never had a cavity*.  My siblings dental health is similar.  Our general health is also excellent.
> 
> I haven’t read any reports on the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing tooth decay or the possible negative effects of prolonged fluoride consumption.  I don’t need to. * I have experienced first hand the benefit of fluoride* and have suffered no negative effects over the long term.




Ferret, with respect, this is quite meaningless.  As Whiskers pointed out, your good dental health could be attributed to other things.

This is the fault of the argument that many use to support the addition of fluoride to drinking water:-
_"I have no/few cavities.   I have drunk fluoridated water all my life.  Therefore the ingestion of fluoride prevents cavities"_  That is faulty logic and far too simplistic.   

What do you say to the people who have also drunk fluoridated water all their lives and who have apalling teeth, full of cavities?

None of my children had a cavity until they left home (I don't know what the situation is now), and none ever drank fluoridated water.  One, I know, still has no cavities (aged 40) and has still never drunk the stuff.  How does that fit in with your logic? Oh, and my teeth are very poor, so it is not genetic.


----------



## Ruby (18 March 2011)

Ferret said:


> Because my parents shared the same diet and dental hygiene practices.  The only difference was they didn't get fluoride when they were young.?



There would have been many generational differences between your diet and dental hygiene and those of your parents when they were growing up.



> Because good diet and dental hygiene alone were not enough to prevent tooth decay in previous generations that grew up without fluoride.?



But they were, and they are.  My own family is proof.  Apart from my children, I had many contempories when I was growing up who had excellent teeth - no fluoride!


----------



## Whiskers (18 March 2011)

Ferret said:


> Because my parents shared the same diet and dental hygiene practices. The only difference was they didn't get fluoride when they were young.




If fluoride was the only difference, then the obvious conclusion is that they either had some mitigating circumstance like disease, diet or hygene. *To deduce that a your father, a doctor cannot maintain good dental hygene without fluoride is very poor analyitical judgement* for the reason I will discuss further below.



> Because good diet and dental hygiene alone were not enough to prevent tooth decay in previous generations that grew up without fluoride.




That is an extremely extraudinary staatement! So, from that logic nobody would have had a full head of teeth for very long before Flouride tablets, fluoride tooth paste and fluoridation was introduced. That's absolute nonsense!

Even today, I could take you to parts of the world that have never even heard of fluoride, don't have it occuring naturally, but have very good teeth. The main thing they also don't have is a high sugar western diet.



> Whiskers, when the right conclusion stares you in the face, why go looking for ways to try and prove it wrong?




Essentially, if you jump to what seems to be any aparently 'right' conclusion just because it seems to stare you in the face, without objectively analysing the facts, you will live in ignorant bliss never knowing you were wrong. 

The scientific termonology is 'Subjective' decision making. 

Do you use any Decision Matrix models in any of your decision making?


----------



## Ferret (18 March 2011)

Ruby said:


> There would have been many generational differences between your diet and dental hygiene and those of your parents when they were growing up.



Yes, there were a lot more sugary foods and drinks around for my generation!




Ruby said:


> But they were, and they are.  My own family is proof.  Apart from my children, I had many contempories when I was growing up who had excellent teeth - no fluoride!



Your family had no fluoride?  I bet they have been brushing their teeth with a toothpaste containing fluoride.  Something not available to earlier generations.

I’m sure there are many examples of people who have not had fluoride but have healthy teeth.  I don’t believe fluoride is essential to avoiding tooth decay, but I do believe it helps.  Similarly, I don't believe fluoride will prevent cavities in someone with a terrible diet and poor dental hygiene, but again I believe it will help.

In my case I believe the benefits of fluoride are clear.  There is no reason why a connection must be wrong, just because it is simple.


----------



## Ruby (18 March 2011)

Ferret said:


> Your family had no fluoride?  I bet they have been brushing their teeth with a toothpaste containing fluoride.  Something not available to earlier generations..




No, strange as it apparently is to you, we did *not *use fluoridated toothpaste.  Up until about 10 years ago I was able to source an unfluoridated supply.  So, yes, cavity free teeth, all *without *fluoride!!!


----------



## OzWaveGuy (18 March 2011)

*PR Hits the mark*

Looking at some of the comments in this thread, I can only add that the propaganda campaign driven in the early days of fluoride indoctrination has worked very well and continues to work today - on those that must believe authority figures are always right because "I feel ok"

Unfortunately such beliefs or mindsets are hard to change even when sufficient evidence exists - even if it's from those very same authoritative figures.

It's the same story with vaccines (not that I want to go off topic), some are lethal to certain types of patients. One only has to search the National Vaccine Information Center Database in the US to see the effects of vaccines (mainly on young children). 

Sorry, but the "I'm feeling fine, so it must ok" is a weak and useless argument that I have heard more from alcoholics.


----------



## Ferret (18 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> If fluoride was the only difference, then the obvious conclusion is that they either had some mitigating circumstance like disease, diet or hygene.




Where is the logic in this?  The obvious conclusion is that the fluoride was the difference.




Whiskers said:


> That is an extremely extraudinary staatement! So, from that logic nobody would have had a full head of teeth for very long before Flouride tablets, fluoride tooth paste and fluoridation was introduced. That's absolute nonsense!
> 
> Even today, I could take you to parts of the world that have never even heard of fluoride, don't have it occuring naturally, but have very good teeth. The main thing they also don't have is a high sugar western diet.




Please see my reply to Ruby.  I haven't said that fluoride is essential for preventing cavities.  Some people will have no decay without fluoride and fluoride is not a magic bullet preventing all tooth decay.  But I am convinced it is a benefit.



Whiskers said:


> Essentially, if you jump to what seems to be any aparently 'right' conclusion just because it seems to stare you in the face, without objectively analysing the facts, you will live in ignorant bliss never knowing you were wrong.




Whiskers, all you have come up with are maybes to dispute my conclusion and I have answered each one of them.  You're welcome to your own view, but you haven't come up with an analysis of the facts I gave that proves me wrong.


----------



## Whiskers (18 March 2011)

Ferret said:


> Where is the logic in this? The obvious conclusion is that the fluoride was the difference.




I think you misunderstand. 

If your father was a doctor and he had good hygene and diet why did he have tooth decay?

You surely can't accept just because he didn't have fluoride. You have already acknowledged "Some people will have no decay without fluoride and fluoride is not a magic bullet preventing all tooth decay."

So unless he didn't practice good hygene and diet, there must be some other reason why he had tooth decay, such as some sort of disease that affected his metabolism.


----------



## Ferret (18 March 2011)

Whiskers,

I don't know why he had tooth decay.  I know he had good hygiene and diet and did not have any diagnosed disease.  A genetic disposition to tooth decay would seem most likely.


----------



## medicowallet (18 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> *medicowallet, can you eloberate here? *
> 
> *Are you referring to fluoridation or fluoride generally?*
> 
> Also, have you missed my earlier query?




Do I really need to elaborate?

Is it not obvious what I mean in the context?

God, next thing you will all be arguing is that we should not use oxygen in anaesthetics as it is toxic. 

Looking at the evidence in context is where I think the conspiracy theorists lack competence.


----------



## medicowallet (18 March 2011)

*Re: PR Hits the mark*



OzWaveGuy said:


> Unfortunately such beliefs or mindsets are hard to change even when sufficient evidence exists - even if it's from those very same authoritative figures.




What evidence?

... waits for link to conspiracy theorists site.

Come on, accept the challenge none of you can answer

*SHOW ME A STUDY PROVING THAT THE COSTS OF FLUORIDE TREATMENT OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS*

oh, you won't?

why not?

come on, post up some sensationalised propaganda from the conspiracy files, shown on some shock "news" tv station from the US.


----------



## Whiskers (18 March 2011)

+







medicowallet said:


> Do I really need to elaborate?
> 
> Is it not obvious what I mean in the context?




No... because they are two very distinct and different processes... unless you don't see any difference between topical and ingested fluoride. 



> God, next thing you will all be arguing is that we should not use oxygen in anaesthetics as it is toxic.




No I wouldn't. Why should I? 

But Oxygen toxicity is a recognised medical condition. Are you saying that there is no circumstance where fluoride can be toxic?


----------



## medicowallet (18 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> +
> 
> No... because they are two very distinct and different processes... unless you don't see any difference between topical and ingested fluoride.
> 
> ...




sigh

1. If you read my posts, and the studies that I refer to, then you would know, without a doubt what I was referring to.

2. If you truly think that I do not understand that fluoride can be toxic, then you surely did not read into the sarcasm of the post.


----------



## Whiskers (18 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> sigh







> 1. If you read my posts, and the studies that I refer to, then you would know, without a doubt what I was referring to.
> 
> 2. If you truly think that I do not understand that fluoride can be toxic, then you surely did not read into the sarcasm of the post.




But you seem to have a lot of trouble admitting the toxic issues, let alone discussing them if only for the benifit of those who have alergic reactions to certain chemicals such as Fluoride... not to mention a responsible attitude to the use of it and respect for it's misuse.

Also you wouldn't want to give the wrong impression to any young kids that may be watching that fluoride is the panacea of tooth decay... would you? 

I find your attitude unlikely that of a responsible medical professianal, certainly not one of the caliber that I see... just another blow hard advocate of all things fluoride.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 March 2011)

There is a Pommy Antique show on Austar where everyone who appears on it has bad teeth, presenters, contestants, auctioneers. 

They even had a dog on it one night who had crook teeth.

Is this because Pommies don't have fluoride, or that they don't brush their teeth, or that they have free dentists who are no good?

gg


----------



## Whiskers (18 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is a Pommy Antique show on Austar where everyone who appears on it has bad teeth, presenters, contestants, auctioneers.
> 
> They even had a dog on it one night who had crook teeth.
> 
> ...




Lol... reminds me of 'antique' Steptoe (and Son).


----------



## Julia (18 March 2011)

Ferret said:


> Whiskers,
> 
> I don't know why he had tooth decay.  I know he had good hygiene and diet and did not have any diagnosed disease.  A genetic disposition to tooth decay would seem most likely.



Finally we have a sensible statement here..  Why do some people develop coronary artery disease, despite never being overweight, eating the good foods, exercising etc, while others who transgress every known advice, never have any problem?

Our genes, fergawdsake.

My main argument in this debate is not whether fluoride in the water is beneficial or not, or whether it causes potentially very damaging side effects, but rather simply the assault on our personal freedom to choose for ourselves.

I simply cannot see why those who want to ingest fluoride cannot do so by taking fluoride on an individual basis, thus leaving the water supply (something which is absolutely basic to our survival) free of the stuff for those of us who do not want to take it.  Just exactly what is unreasonable or unfair about such an approach?

And it's not reasonable for those advocating the use of fluoride to say that those who don't want it must adopt the additional cost and responsibility of seeking another source of water than that which we all pay for.  Why should people have to instal rainwater tanks or expensive filters to counteract some unnecessary additive to their basic water supply?


----------



## OzWaveGuy (18 March 2011)

I sense desperation from some posters in the discredited argument for S6 poison in the water, Sockpuppet?


----------



## medicowallet (18 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> But you seem to have a lot of trouble admitting the toxic issues, let alone discussing them if only for the benifit of those who have alergic reactions to certain chemicals such as Fluoride... not to mention a responsible attitude to the use of it and respect for it's misuse.
> 
> Also you wouldn't want to give the wrong impression to any young kids that may be watching that fluoride is the panacea of tooth decay... would you?
> 
> I find your attitude unlikely that of a responsible medical professianal, certainly not one of the caliber that I see... just another blow hard advocate of all things fluoride.




lol.

Look, sometimes it is better to attack the person rather than provide evidence. I can see why you do not want to provide evidence, because there is none.

I love the S6 poison rubbish too. You can sell the community short with naive narrow minded uses of therapeutic agents. I'm sure if you had it your way, there would be no use for (in the old terminology) S4 or S8 medicines as well, since most are toxic if used incorrectly as well.

As a response to the professionalism of my approach:

It is much more professional to support proven, undisputed public health initiatives where the benefit of the program clearly outweighs the cost, than to burden our young ones with propaganda and hyperbole.

I have also provided the youth with links to two peer reviewed journal articles to help them determine who is correct for themselves.

and as usual *NOBODY CAN PROVIDE PEER REVIEWED, PUBLISHED EVIDENCE THAT THE COSTS OF FLUORIDE OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS TO THE POPULATION* and until anyone of you conspiracy theorists can, anyone with any reason or education in the matter will see through your arguments.


----------



## IFocus (18 March 2011)

> Whiskers;619935]Thanks for sharing IFocus... and yes that was a typical anecdotal observation/report of the time and even now. But as a dentist, correct me if I'm wrong, he was not particularly qualified to notice any other health side effects from in this case indiscriminate fluoride dosage and diet... not to mention severe lack of medical and dental support in remote aboriginal areas to offsett the adverse effects of our (western) foods high in sugar and now recognised often low in nutrition that they were introduced too by us.




Cant comment on any side effects but would imagine there is plenty of scope that there could be for some people.

I never had fluoride and have a head full of fillings kids had fluoride not one filling


----------



## medicowallet (18 March 2011)

Julia said:


> My main argument in this debate is not whether fluoride in the water is beneficial or not, or whether it causes potentially very damaging side effects, but rather simply the assault on our personal freedom to choose for ourselves.
> 
> I simply cannot see why those who want to ingest fluoride cannot do so by taking fluoride on an individual basis, thus leaving the water supply (something which is absolutely basic to our survival) free of the stuff for those of us who do not want to take it.  Just exactly what is unreasonable or unfair about such an approach?
> 
> And it's not reasonable for those advocating the use of fluoride to say that those who don't want it must adopt the additional cost and responsibility of seeking another source of water than that which we all pay for.  Why should people have to instal rainwater tanks or expensive filters to counteract some unnecessary additive to their basic water supply?




Julia, 

A quick google scholar search will provide the evidence you need.

As for why? It is obviously known that as a public health initiative, benefits outweigh costs.

It is also an option for people to not have to drink fluoridated water, and on the other hand, why should I have to pay extra for other peoples cardiac and dental care etc ?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Lol... reminds me of 'antique' Steptoe (and Son).




Perhaps it is just collectors of antiques, who have bad teeth. There could very well be something in the dust of old furniture and bric a brac that leaches fluoride from the body.

gg


----------



## Whiskers (19 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> lol.
> 
> Look, sometimes it is better to attack the person rather than provide evidence. I can see why you do not want to provide evidence, because there is none.




Look!? ... I asked you to clarify some of your broad "propaganda and hyperbole". The only evidence I need for that is the statements that you made.

Since you resort to personal attack and evading the point, it leaves you highly suspicious of being a stooge.



> I love the S6 poison rubbish too. You can sell the community short with naive narrow minded uses of therapeutic agents. I'm sure if you had it your way, there would be no use for (in the old terminology) S4 or S8 medicines as well, since most are toxic if used incorrectly as well.




Why do you toss this in with me? I didn't make any comment towards you or about this. You sure have a lot of trouble focusing on the point for a health 'professional'.




> As a response to the professionalism of my approach:
> 
> It is much more professional to support proven, undisputed public health initiatives where the benefit of the program clearly outweighs the cost, than to burden our young ones with propaganda and hyperbole.
> 
> I have also provided the youth with links to two peer reviewed journal articles to help them determine who is correct for themselves.




The papers you refer to (without URL links) does not provide undisputed proof of public health benifit, cost wise or otherwise. They also don't discuss or indicate looking for any adverse side effects other than fluorosis and certainly doesn't "help them determine who is correct" simply because it doesn't investigate other contributing factors like socio economic status, availability of prompt public dental services or any other contributing factors. 

The data collection is objective, but your conclusion is clearly subjective, because of the lack of any holistic analysis as indicated above. 

I followed the Qld legislation pretty closely. The Qld legislation path was heavily focused on the ideology of forcing fluoridation on everyone for their own good. 

I did not see any economic study about the cost benifit of fluoridation. I've heard many generalised statements like yours that fluoridation is a cost effective public health initiative, but would like to see the actual economic data and forcasts. 

If you are a health professional esp. doctor, you would have better access to and able to provide a good quality link to such an economic study and forcast?


----------



## medicowallet (19 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Look!? ... I asked you to clarify some of your broad "propaganda and hyperbole". The only evidence I need for that is the statements that you made.
> 
> Since you resort to personal attack and evading the point, it leaves you highly suspicious of being a stooge.




LOL, accusing me of this is ridiculous.

Please, once, answer the question. I note that nobody does, and keep answering my questions, questions which would give you an argument which is irrefutable evidence with questions of your own.

You know that there is no evidence that the costs outweigh the benefits,  otherwise you would proudly provide it and end this thread.

You know that the "evidence" you refer to is tainted and unprofessional, unpublished and inaccurate, so you fail to provide it. You know that educated scientists see right through it. 



Whiskers said:


> Why do you toss this in with me? I didn't make any comment towards you or about this. You sure have a lot of trouble focusing on the point for a health 'professional'.




You did refer to toxicity, and this explains that it is toxic, but in its indicated use, clearly has a public health benefit. 



Whiskers said:


> The papers you refer to (without URL links) does not provide undisputed proof of public health benifit, cost wise or otherwise. They also don't discuss or indicate looking for any adverse side effects other than fluorosis and certainly doesn't "help them determine who is correct" simply because it doesn't investigate other contributing factors like socio economic status, availability of prompt public dental services or any other contributing factors.
> 
> The data collection is objective, but your conclusion is clearly subjective, because of the lack of any holistic analysis as indicated above.
> 
> ...




1. I provided the journal, if you do not know how to find journal articles with the journal details, volume, pages etc, then how do you do your own research? or do you?

2. I did not post them to show that there were no side effects, only to show efficacy.

3. To disprove their safety, *POST ONE PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED STUDY WHICH SHOWS THE COSTS OF FLUORIDE OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS!!!!!!!*

4. No, my conclusion takes into account a clear public health benefit, versus no proven cost benefit loss against fluoridation.

Your conclusion is that it is bad, with no proven cost benefit loss against fluoridation. Your logic astounds me.

5. Once you provide me with *ONE PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED STUDY WHICH SHOWS THE COSTS OF FLUORIDE OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS!!!!!!!*

I will provide you with THREE showing its benefit.


----------



## Calliope (19 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> I followed the Qld legislation pretty closely. The Qld legislation path was heavily focused on the ideology of forcing fluoridation on everyone for their own good.




Yeah, like seat belts or RBT.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (19 March 2011)

*Brainless*



Calliope said:


> Yeah, like seat belts or RBT.




Another Brainless argument

Does wearing seatbelts or participating in RBT stops cause a multitude of *documentmented problems*?


----------



## Calliope (19 March 2011)

*Re: Brainless*



OzWaveGuy said:


> Another Brainless argument
> 
> Does wearing seatbelts or participating in RBT stops cause a multitude of *documentmented problems*?




Irrelevant.  Whiskers was talking about forcing something on everybody for their own good.


----------



## Whiskers (19 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> Yeah, like seat belts or RBT.




I'm not sure what your point is here Calliope. Do you think compulsary fluoridation is a good thing or not and why?  

I personally don't have any great problem with seat belts in road vehicles or RBT, but I fail to see any related comparason to fluoridation.


----------



## medicowallet (19 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> I'm not sure what your point is here Calliope. Do you think compulsary fluoridation is a good thing or not and why?
> 
> I personally don't have any great problem with seat belts in road vehicles or RBT, but I fail to see any related comparason to fluoridation.




But don't seat belts lacerate livers in some people?

Shock horror!!! Remove all seatbelts they KILL!

It is a conspiracy from GI surgeons who are trying to muster up business.


----------



## Calliope (19 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> I'm not sure what your point is here Calliope. Do you think compulsary fluoridation is a good thing or not and why?
> 
> I personally don't have any great problem with seat belts in road vehicles or RBT, but I fail to see any related comparason to fluoridation.




I have no intention of joining a debate that's going nowhere. I merely commented on your statement about forcing something "on everyone for their own good". 

If I had known it was going to antagonise you and OWG I wouldn't have said it..:fan


----------



## Ruby (19 March 2011)

MW - try reading these........you asked to be pointed to some studies that showed fluoride in drinking water is not effective

http://www.fluoridealert.org/york-critique.htm

This is a review by Paul Connet PhD.   At the end of it is a long list of references.  Take your pick of the studies referred to there.

One of them is "The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay" by Mark Diedendorf:-

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/diesendorf.html 
(Hmm! for some reason this link has been partially blocked, but if you Google the title you will find it.)

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/21263.php

I would also strongly suggest you watch the "Fire Water" videos, that is is you WANT to see some credible evidence that fluoride in drinking water is both useless and dangerous......... but I suspect you won't watch it, because you don't want to see the evidence.  There are many reputable doctors, dentists and scientists quoted in this documentary.  At least you should acquaint yourself with both sides of the picture!


----------



## Whiskers (19 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> I have no intention of joining a debate that's going nowhere. I merely commented on your statement about forcing something "on everyone for their own good".
> 
> If I had known it was going to antagonise you and OWG I wouldn't have said it..:fan




I'm not antagonised, far from it. I'm just curious why people have strong or even no opinion as I did before Julia started this thread.


----------



## Whiskers (19 March 2011)

Ok, medicowallet... lets start from the start.



medicowallet said:


> As someone with some idea of public health initiatives I find this topic quite amusing.




I guess we all should have asked why you find this topic quite amusing? 

Your statements have a clear disrespect for the cost and inconvenience to people who do not need or wish to consume more fluoride via fluoridation. 



> 1. People have a choice to drink the water. *If they are concerned then they can purchase bottled water, or use tank water etc.* I am sure that most people have no problem with topical application of fluoride on their skin (but the crackpots probably do)




On the issue of *efficiency* and *cost benifits*... how much extra is a healthy person who doesn't need fluoridation going to have to pay for 'bottled water' or a 'water tank'?

Clearly it's going to accumulate into thousands of dollars per year.



> *The evidence is out there.... you know the evidence for the efficacy, NOT for the mind control effects of fluoride.*




*Efficiency means*; the accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort.



medicowallet said:


> Also, I note that, even with your self acknowledged expertise in studies, failed to provide a single published study proving that the cost of fluoride outweighs its benefits. *I have provided 2 studies proving that dental health is improved*.




These studies show less caries, BUT notes a trade off between less caries and increased dental fluorosis. Even without considering any other physiological effects, *what is the cost benefit to the considerable number who suffer fluorisis? *



medicowallet said:


> '
> It is much more professional to support proven, undisputed *public health initiatives where the benefit of the program clearly outweighs the cost*, than to burden our young ones with propaganda and hyperbole.






medicowallet said:


> Julia,
> As for why? It is* obviously known that as a public health initiative, benefits outweigh costs.*






medicowallet said:


> You did refer to toxicity, and this explains that it is toxic, but in its indicated use, *clearly has a public health benefit. *
> 
> 2. I did not post them to show that there were no side effects, *only to show efficacy*.
> 
> 4. No, my conclusion takes into account* a clear public health benefit*, versus no proven cost benefit loss against fluoridation.




So in summary, you say fluoridation is an efficient way to reduce caries. I agree, albeit cheap and nasty because it's indiscriminate, not targeting the people with poor dental health because they drink less water (as opposed to sugary drinks) anyway.

*You keep harping on about a clear public health benefit where the benefits outweigh the costs, yet have provided absolutely no evidence or links to economic studies*, in particular including the costs transferred to local water authorities who have to wear and pass on increased running costs and to the general population who have to buy bottled water or install a water tank for reasons of allergies or other conditions reactive to fluoride, or not wanting or needing to ingest more fluoride.


----------



## medicowallet (19 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Ok, medicowallet... lets start from the start.
> 
> 
> I guess we all should have asked why you find this topic quite amusing?
> ...




Wow.

Firstly, there is a difference between the word efficacy and efficiency, perhaps a google will help you.

Secondly, you and others seem to think that it is my argument that there is a benefit, perhaps you can read this and make up your mind from the document as to whether there is a benefit.

http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/cdoe319to321/en/index.html

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water/en/

thirdly, I don't think that the population of Australia should be hekd to ransiom by people who erroneously believe that fluoride is detrimental to the health of the community. For if we do, then the other minority groups (eg the anti-immunisation crowd) will be empowered to pursue their flawed campaigns too.

Why should the population have to pay more for medical care just because the smallest minority believe in a ridiculous conspiracy theory?  Public health benefits the population, and unforunately in that situation, sometimes the minority is affected.

Let's take for example the medicare levy as a rough example. I pay it to insure others, do I need it? heck no, do I pay it, surely do, I pay quite a bit actually. If you have a perceived detrimental effect of fluoridation, why in fact you may experience a side effect eg fluorosis, but there ARE benefits such as less cardiac complication etc which unfortunately outweigh your problem, and which we have a duty to control.


Look I understand that you do not understand public health initiatives. That is ok, but you must understand that sometimes your personal choice is detrimental to the greater good, and in this case it clearly is.



Please, since nobody is actually answering the question I have posted numerous times

Does anyone here believe that the government is intentionally poisoning the community?

Why hasn't the government withdrawn fluoridation with the greens in control of the lower house?


----------



## medicowallet (19 March 2011)

Ruby said:


> MW - try reading these........you asked to be pointed to some studies that showed fluoride in drinking water is not effective
> 
> http://www.fluoridealert.org/york-critique.htm
> 
> ...




I think they are interesting reading.

I do not think that opinions of professionals in the area should be taken as gospel (which is why I merely regurgitate positions of bodies such as the WHO, or from positions formed by quality researchers in quality, peer reviewed journals).


"fire water"

written and researched by http://www.firewaterfilm.com/apps/profile/70833549/

Hardly a world expert on the subject. I note the degree qualifications, and hence will not waste my time watching his "stories" whilst I could read the WHO systematic reviews.


----------



## Whiskers (19 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Wow.
> 
> Firstly, there is a difference between the word efficacy and efficiency, perhaps a google will help you.




Efficacy is the capacity for producing a desired (singular) result, effectiveness in reducing caries. That is the singular focus of many of the pro fluoride lobby. 

You implied that efficacy was efficient with your much touted clear public health benifit where the benifits clearly outweigh the costs. That is why I refered to your reference as "albeit cheap and nasty". 

You will notice that I introduced the word *efficiency* with* cost benifit* as a component of that supposedly clear cost benefit, ahead of your efficiacy quote... because efficiency involves competency in performance.



> Secondly, you and others seem to think that it is my argument that there is a benefit, perhaps you can read this and make up your mind from the document as to whether there is a benefit.
> 
> http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/cdoe319to321/en/index.html
> 
> http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water/en/




*Where is the reference to an economic study of net community cost benifit, ie including taking into account all the passed on and off loaded costs by government.*



> thirdly, I don't think that the population of Australia should be hekd to ransiom by people who erroneously believe that fluoride is detrimental to the health of the community.




The ones that are "hekd to ransiom"   are the majority of the population that have good teeth without fluoridation of the water supply. I have no problems with fluoride tooth paste etc. People can choose to use it or not at no extra cost to anyone. Most including me do use it as an adequate means of dental hygene.



> For if we do, then the other minority groups (eg the anti-immunisation crowd) will be empowered to pursue their flawed campaigns too.




Struth, medicowallet... you sure have a lot of cynical bees under your bonnet. I'm more concerned, as you say you have a lot of experience in public health, that this sort of illogical, even non sensical rational is used in the health system to justify mass fluoridation.



> Why should the population have to pay more for medical care just because the smallest minority believe in a ridiculous conspiracy theory?




A better and more relevant question is "Why should the population have to pay more for medical care just because the smallest minority" don't have good dental health?



> Let's take for example the medicare levy as a rough example. I pay it to insure others, do I need it? heck no, do I pay it, surely do, I pay quite a bit actually. If you have a perceived detrimental effect of fluoridation, why in fact you may experience a side effect eg fluorosis, but there ARE benefits such as less cardiac complication etc which unfortunately outweigh your problem, and which we have a duty to control.




Really, reference to "less cardiac complication etc" please and particularly the cost analysis to show "which unfortunately outweigh your problem".


----------



## medicowallet (19 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Efficacy is the capacity for producing a desired (singular) result, effectiveness in reducing caries. That is the singular focus of many of the pro fluoride lobby.
> 
> You implied that efficacy was efficient with your much touted clear public health benifit where the benifits clearly outweigh the costs. That is why I refered to your reference as "albeit cheap and nasty".
> 
> ...




1. I wish I had the time to link to all your spelling mistakes.  note that with held, k is next to l on the keyboard. Please don't resort to such pettiness.

2. I don't have to reference to cardiac benefits of good dental health, that is common knowledge so I shall not waste my time.

3. I never said that the WHO publication included the information that you bolded. I do not really know of any WHO public health initiative which costs the community more than the benefits, perhaps you do?

4. I think you will find that the cost benefit is in favour of fluoridation, that is why we do it!!  

Why else would we do it?


----------



## Ruby (19 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> I do not think that opinions of professionals in the area should be taken as gospel (which is why I merely regurgitate positions of bodies such as the WHO, or from positions formed by quality researchers in quality, peer reviewed journals).
> 
> 
> "fire water"
> ...




You asked for some studies, and when I provided the links, you dismissed them.

So in other words you are not interested in listening to any opinions or points of view if they differ from yours, even the opinions of your peers - scientists, doctors, dentists - many of whom are violently opposed to the addition of fluoride to the water.

Clearly you also condone the principle of medicating people without permission - something a doctor is not allowed to do - and of using a non-pharmecutical grade substance, which has not been approved by the TGA, with which to medicate the population.

You have a very closed mind.


----------



## medicowallet (19 March 2011)

Ruby said:


> You asked for some studies, and when I provided the links, you dismissed them.
> 
> So in other words you are not interested in listening to any opinions or points of view if they differ from yours, even the opinions of your peers - scientists, doctors, dentists - many of whom are violently opposed to the addition of fluoride to the water.
> 
> ...




No, I did not dismiss them out of denial, but out of lack of quality. There is a difference.  

I said I was after peer reviewed published studies.

I do condone public health initiatives that give people the facts.


----------



## Whiskers (19 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> 4. I think you will find that the cost benefit is in favour of fluoridation, that is why we do it!!




You "think"... thats a long way from a 'clear public health benefit'. 

Medicowallet doesn't seem to be able to find any holistic economic study into the cost and cost shifting of fluoridation. Can anyone help us out with this one?



> Why else would we do it?




Sometimes as a result of lobying from vested interest groups, ideoligical politicans and corrupt persuasion, just to name a few common reasons why poor, inefficient, economic and social decisions are often made by government. 


I refer you back to your point of reference, Public Health. 



> The focus of public health intervention is to prevent rather than treat a disease through surveillance of cases and the promotion of healthy behaviors.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health




Apart from the lack of holistic economic data to support the net total cost saving to the community of fluoridation, it goes against the notion of Public Health Intervention... ie to promote healthy behavours.

The Public Health Departments promotion of healthy behaviours for dental hygene is getting less and less.

This is what most people object to about flouridation. It's not about promoting healthy behavior, just mass medication to try to catch the few and limit the effects of their poor dental hygene rather than a bit more effort targeting them for education or treatment if necessary. 

Often the best education on healthy behaviour in this issue is incorporated with the visits for treatment of existing decay.


----------



## Julia (19 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> 1. I wish I had the time to link to all your spelling mistakes.  note that with held, k is next to l on the keyboard. Please don't resort to such pettiness.



Oh dear, MW, how mean spirited to feel the need to pick on spelling errors, possibly typos, which make no difference to the sense of what Whiskers is saying.
Is that really the behaviour of someone confident in his argument?  We all have different backgrounds.  Some of us were rigidly schooled in spelling and others were not.  It is not the mark of the person.  Shame on you.



> 2. I don't have to reference to cardiac benefits of good dental health, that is common knowledge so I shall not waste my time.



How utterly patronising.   We all acquire our 'knowledge' in different ways and from different sources.  As you are so fond of telling us you are a Medical Health Professional, please note capitals according due respect to your status.

So we would expect you to be cognisant of various medical knowledge not widely accessed by the rest of us.  If you were less conscious of maintaining your egocentricity, you would give Whiskers the information he has sought.

I've said all I have to say about the fluoridation of the water supply.  I am opposed to it absolutely on the basis that it is mass medication when a valid alternative exists, i.e. those who want it can take supplementary fluoride.

And I don't want to become again embroiled in a squabble.  I'm just disappointed that you are again doing what you do so consistently, MW, i.e. adopting some sort of moral, intellectual and educational high ground where you feel the need to put others down for their genuinely held views.


----------



## Julia (19 March 2011)

Whiskers, could you please clear your In Box.
J.


----------



## Whiskers (19 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Whiskers, could you please clear your In Box.
> J.




Just done it.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Oh dear, MW, how mean spirited to feel the need to pick on spelling errors, possibly typos, which make no difference to the sense of what Whiskers is saying.
> Is that really the behaviour of someone confident in his argument?  We all have different backgrounds.  Some of us were rigidly schooled in spelling and others were not.  It is not the mark of the person.  Shame on you.
> 
> 
> ...




I disagree with your stance on Fluoride, Julia, but disagree with the docs method of argument.

It would be nice if we agreed that Fluoride is better for teeth, which I do, and that we could trust the populace to self medicate, but we cannot, and for our children and grandchildren's sake it needs imho to be a public health measure.

As far as I am concerned the evidence is compelling that flouridation of water leads to better dental health without any significant adverse effects on the population.

gg


----------



## medicowallet (19 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Oh dear, MW, how mean spirited to feel the need to pick on spelling errors, possibly typos, which make no difference to the sense of what Whiskers is saying.
> Is that really the behaviour of someone confident in his argument?  We all have different backgrounds.  Some of us were rigidly schooled in spelling and others were not.  It is not the mark of the person.  Shame on you.
> 
> 
> ...




As you know, I am not a strickland for status, as I believe respect needs to be earned. 

I am sorry Julia, that you did not read any further up where the poster decided to mock a mistyped word of mine. 

I think you will find that whiskers should be the one berated for such pettiness, as I pointed out.

As for the patronising part:

I am finding it frustrating that people who have obviously never read anything other than the conspiracy theory tripe, do not participate in a discussion appropriately.

Anyone could easily google dental health and cardiovascular disease, and am insulted that the poster could not believe that my claim was substantiated. I will not be demanded of my knowledge in such an insulting way thankyou.

I am also sorry, that people, with the beliefs, fail to ever provide their smoking gun, fail to have any understanding in the topic at hand and berate people who put forward evidence provided by peak bodies and published in peer reviewed journals.

I also note that you hold a grudge for posts made around 9 months ago. I find your maturity lacking in this regard, but forgive you  I understand you are trying to defend someone who has probably got in a bit deeper than they anticipated, but perhaps you could help them with an argument, rather than creating one.

P.S.

I also note in a PM from you, that you apologise for having a go at me regarding a spelling incident (which from the flavour of the message, it appears I was correct in the spelling), I appreciate it, and can only think that your post (erroneous as it was) was that of a reformed spelling nazi, once again, I forgive you


----------



## medicowallet (20 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> You "think"... thats a long way from a 'clear public health benefit'.
> 
> Medicowallet doesn't seem to be able to find any holistic economic study into the cost and cost shifting of fluoridation. Can anyone help us out with this one?
> 
> ...




Sorry, I asked you to provide a study showing that the risks outweigh the benefits, and I said I would provide three if you did.  You have a viewpoint supported by studies, I have the WHO, please read their links and evaluate the cost benefit from what they say.

Oh, I agree that diet and self-care are paramount in dental health, but at the moment, there is need for fluoridation.

Trying to change people's health behaviours is tough work, and in the interim, in this occasion, fluoridation provides a cost effective solution to a problem.


----------



## Calliope (20 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> I am finding it frustrating that people who have obviously never read anything other than the conspiracy theory tripe, do not participate in a discussion appropriately.




I know you must find it frustrating, medicowallet, but you know that logic, common sense or facts count for nothing with conspiracy theorists. One characteristic they possess is the inability to withdraw or admit they are wrong

Read this and you will see what you are up against;

*10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists*

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html


----------



## pixel (20 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Sorry, I asked you to provide a study showing that the risks outweigh the benefits, and I said I would provide three if you did.  You have a viewpoint supported by studies, I have the WHO, please read their links and evaluate the cost benefit from what they say.
> 
> Oh, I agree that diet and self-care are paramount in dental health, but at the moment, there is need for fluoridation.
> 
> Trying to change people's health behaviours is tough work, and in the interim, in this occasion, fluoridation provides a cost effective solution to a problem.



 MW, I do accept that fluoridation of drinking water can help improve dental hygiene and reduce cardiac problems caused by bad diet.
That is, however, cold comfort to patients like myself, who have made it a habit to take responsibility for their own actions, from dental care to sensible diet, yet have to suffer as their drinking water is being poisoned all in the interest of a "greater common good". As a medico, I'm sure you have a vague notion of the pain kidney stones inflict on their sufferers.

If the general population were educated to teach their kids general hygiene, including dental; if the purveyors of junk food and teeth-damaging drinks were mandated to add fluoride to their illness-causing products; if people were considered to take responsibility for their actions, rather than rely on Nanny State to wipe their bottoms, none of this debate needed to take place.

I am sure you are aware of the recent increase of tooth decay among young kids, who have fallen for the advertising lure of "sports drink" manufacturers. They are made to believe that drinking this teeth-rotting agent will turn them into instant equals of their idolised athletes. And nobody is willing to stop this criminal activity because it's making money on so many levels. Plans are now being drawn up, based on University research, how additional chemicals can be added to these sports drinks that neutralise the bad side effects. And what do the manufacturers have to say? "We might consider it, provided it is guaranteed not to change the taste of the drink." 

If that's the corner our Universities and scientists have let themselves be pushed into, then God Help Us!


----------



## Whiskers (20 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> 2. I don't have to reference to cardiac benefits of good dental health, that is common knowledge so I shall not waste my time.




I don't dispute the cardiac benefits of good dental hygiene.

BUT, this is what you said.



> Originally Posted by *medicowallet*
> 
> 
> *If you have a perceived detrimental effect of fluoridation*, why in fact you may experience a side effect eg fluorosis, but there *ARE benefits such as less cardiac complication etc* which unfortunately outweigh your problem, and which we have a duty to control.




What I'm challenging you on is the effect of fluoride especially ingested in fluoridation as being a cardiac benefit. 

*Again you make a profoundly untrue and misleading statement without reference.* 

When I google I come up with things like Iodine is becoming more deficient in modern society and Fluoride displaces it leading to a number of adverse conditions... and the US is increasingly concerned with the knock on and compounding effects of adding fluoride to water supplies.


> HHS Recommends Lower Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water
> 
> January 10, 2011 ”” Two federal agencies have announced that they are taking new measures to reduce levels of fluoride in drinking water because Americans increasingly encounter the mineral from other sources, such as fluoridated toothpaste.
> 
> ...






> The NRC (2006) examination of the MCL/MCLG for fluoride was an outgrowth of the first six year review of the 1986 fluoride drinking water regulation as mandated by the 1996 SDWA and recognition by EPA of the number of scientific studies on the bone and dental effects of fluoride that were published after the regulation (U.S. EPA, 2003). The NRC published the report of their effort in 2006 as: _Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. _The NRC committee concluded that EPA’s current MCLG of 4 mg/L for fluoride should be lowered to reduce the risk of severe enamel fluorosis and minimize the risk for bone fractures and skeletal fluorosis in adults. It charged the OW with conducting a dose-response assessment for the critical noncancer effects of fluoride on teeth and bone (U.S. EPA, 2010a) and the exposure and relative source assessment presented in this report. Through this effort, EPA has concluded that:​
> ● Some young children are being exposed to fluoride up to about age 7 at levels that
> increase the risk for severe dental fluorosis.​
> 
> ...




There is the credible evidence that Fluoride is causing harm and Flouridation fraught with danger due to the forseeable compounding effects of fluoride in processed products.


----------



## Whiskers (20 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Sorry, I asked you to provide a study showing that the risks outweigh the benefits, and I said I would provide three if you did. You have a viewpoint supported by studies, I have the WHO, please read their links and evaluate the cost benefit from what they say.




The WHO links don't provide any cost benifit... just an efficacy in the capacity for producing a desired (singular) result, reduce caries... as distinct from anything to do with economic efficiency.



> Trying to change people's health behaviors is tough work, and in the interim, in this occasion, *fluoridation provides a cost effective solution to a problem.*




BUT again where is your evidence of an economic study on the clear public benefit of fluoridation?

The evidence as in previous post continues to indicate, in the absence of a definitive economic study, that the cost of fluoridation is increasing because in their haste to introduce it they have overlooked quite a number of issues that has caused increasing degrees of unwanted cost to repair and increasing unwanted public backlash from being told that their embarrassing dental fluorosis etc is in the greater public good.


You will note that the Qld regulation is a max of 1.5mg/L... double what the US is being advised by it's scientists is an acceptable trade off for fluoridation. 

You will also note that Qld has already had at least one significant issue where the fluoridation rate was accidently high, 31mg/L, well in excess of 1.5mg/L resulting in numerous complaints of ill health in the North Pine Water Treatment area.


----------



## medicowallet (20 March 2011)

1. I am not going to provide the three studies that I have until you provide the one that you should have to make your claims (btw it is not hard to find cost-benefit studies supporting fluoridation, try google scholar)

2. Cardiac benefits alone are not the only benefits of fluoridation, and the studies I have do not differentiate the costs to the extent of valvular disease etc, and therefore must be taken in their entirity. ie a positive cost-benefit study takes this, and other appropriate factors into account (something you believe is not happening, and I have called for you to supply evidence of this)

3. I am glad we agree on some of the causes of tooth decay, and I refer you to my statement of the same, and I hope you acknowledge that even though people like you and I may not benefit from fluoridation, and are proactive enough to take all appropriate measures to control our own health, some people are not. These people benefit from public health initiatives.  Once the balance moves out of benefit outweighs cost, I would expect fluoridation to cease.

4. Fluoridation is done at non-toxic levels.

5. I think conspiracy theorists overstate the detrimental effects of fluorosis versus the benefits of fluoridation on more serious health conditions such as cardiac health.


----------



## Calliope (20 March 2011)

One of the hallmarks of a good conspiracy theorist is that he never gives up. I notice that you were still beavering away at 1.37 this morning desperately seeking ammunition.

You are conforming to most of the characteristics of conspiracy theorists.

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html


----------



## OzWaveGuy (20 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> One of the hallmarks of a good conspiracy theorist is that he never gives up. I notice that you were still beavering away at 1.37 this morning desperately seeking ammunition.
> 
> You are conforming to most of the characteristics of conspiracy theorists.
> 
> http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html




Ah, here we go, the brainless default argument, "it must be a conspiracy". Gees, asbestos, lead and arsenic are perfectly safe, it was those conspiracy theorists too. Your immaturity is shining thru on this thread Cal.


----------



## Calliope (20 March 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Ah, here we go, the brainless default argument, "it must be a conspiracy". Gees, asbestos, lead and arsenic are perfectly safe, it was those conspiracy theorists too. Your immaturity is shining thru on this thread Cal.




Name calling and pejorative comments are part of the conspiracy theorists' arsenal. The first characteristic of the theorists fits you.

1. *Arrogance*. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.


----------



## Whiskers (20 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> 1. I am not going to provide the three studies that I have until you provide the one that you should have to make your claims (btw it is not hard to find cost-benefit studies supporting fluoridation, try google scholar)
> 
> 2. *Cardiac benefits alone are not the only benefits of fluoridation,* and the studies I have do not differentiate the costs to the extent of valvular disease etc, and therefore must be taken in their entirity. ie a positive cost-benefit study takes this, and other appropriate factors into account (something you believe is not happening, and I have called for you to supply evidence of this)




*We have already established that cardiac benifits are derived from good dental hygene, not fluoridation per se.* If you are going to equate better cardiac condition from improved dental health as a result of fluoridation, then you have to include all these negative side effects of fluoridation to get a holistic cost benifit study... which we are keen to see. 



> 3. I am glad we agree on some of the causes of tooth decay, and I refer you to my statement of the same, and I hope you acknowledge that even though people like you and I may not benefit from fluoridation, and are proactive enough to take all appropriate measures to control our own health, some people are not. These people benefit from public health initiatives. Once the balance moves out of benefit outweighs cost, I would expect fluoridation to cease.
> 
> 4. *Fluoridation is done at non-toxic levels*.




Lets be clear about some more terms you are introducing to evade providing proof of your earlier fallacious and misleading statements.

*Toxic*: acting as or having the effect of a poison; poisonous: _a toxic drug. _

By any definition the reports I cited above demonstrate that previous fluoridation levels in the US are having longer term toxic effect on too many people.

If you wish to read through them you will also see reference to a number of other health concerns with too high, ie toxic fluoridation rates.



> 5. *I think conspiracy theorists overstate the detrimental effects of fluorosis* versus the benefits of fluoridation on more serious health conditions such as cardiac health.






_The links I provided are to reports by;_

_The US National Accademy of Sciences (NAA) http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer _
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) http://www.hhs.gov/
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) http://www.epa.gov/
*So these US Scientific and Government bodies that produce those above cited reports are conspiracy theorists eh!?*

Geesus, I can't wait to see your sources, who aren't conspiracy theorists!

While you are getting those economic studies and your non conspiriacy theorists sources... you might also like to explain the essential need for fluoride in normal human physiology.

I'll start off by making the statement that *fluoride is not an essential element for normal **human physiology*, on the contrary, a normal human is perfectly healthy without any fluoride in their system.

The biggest contributer to poor health including the big two, diabetes and heart disease, is too much sugar and too much fat in the diet.

The most efficient way to reduce all these health problems is to reduce consumption of them, ie sugar and fats. If this was done by regulation if necessary, (the amount and type of sugar and fats in our foods) dental cavities would also decline considerably, simply you would remove the cause.


----------



## Ruby (20 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> I know you must find it frustrating, medicowallet, but you know that logic, common sense or facts count for nothing with conspiracy theorists. One characteristic they possess is the inability to withdraw or admit they are wrong
> 
> Read this and you will see what you are up against;
> 
> ...




Ah, Calliope, as Medicowallet fits at least 5 of the criteria very nicely, I can only draw the conclusion he must be a conspiracy theorist!

1. Arrogance
2. Relentlessness
3. Inability to answer questions
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor
7. Inability to withdraw


----------



## Calliope (20 March 2011)

Ruby said:


> I can only draw the conclusion he must be a conspiracy theorist!




Of course you are programmed to say that i.e.

10. It's always a conspiracy.


----------



## Whiskers (20 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> *I have no intention of joining a debate that's going nowhere*. I merely commented on your statement about forcing something "on everyone for their own good".




*But you do continue to join the debate, despite...*



> *If I had known it was going to antagonise you and OWG I wouldn't have said it..:fan*




*Since your absolutely contradict everything you started off declaring, how can we take anything you say seriously?*

So, since you are not contributing in any constructive way to the 'debate',* it would be nice if you could demonstrate that you mean what you said.*


----------



## Calliope (20 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> *But you do continue to join the debate, despite...*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have no interest in the fluoride debate. I have been following the thread lately because I am interested in what type of people take up conspiracies. This thread does give some insight. The ten characteristics  I mentioned earlier are fairly consistently demonstrated.


----------



## Billyb (20 March 2011)

DB008 said:


> please......
> 
> Evidence please




As an example, look at DMFT statistics for QLD (only 5% fluoridated) versus the rest of Australia (which is between 70 to 100% fluoridated). I don't have time to look through all the literature and provide all the links here. Here is a QLD health article from a quick Google search if you're interested but I accept that it may be biased..

http://www.health.qld.gov.au/oralhealth/documents/31292.pdf

See also the following link, which reports that Australian Institute of Health found significantly lower DMFT rates in fluroidated areas than now fluoridated areas in children.

http://www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/0801/m111623_v1_december2007.pdf



Ruby said:


> Why should we have to?
> 
> Why is it that a lot of people who have *never *drunk fluoridated water have perfect teeth?
> 
> No, the cost is in putting the stuff *IN *the water!




Because they look after their teeth. Fluoridated water reduces the risk of dental caries on a population level, that is all. Doesn't really have any benefits on individual people who look after their teeth very well, but has massive benefits on people in low socioeconomic areas .

It reduces the cost because public dental care in QLD is very expensive, and those costs on taxpayers will reduce as the benefits of fluoride have time to develop in our younger ones. (far more money is spent here on dental care than other states because our DMFT rates are so much higher).

Always will be a debate about this. One can argue that it is unfair because 'why should people who look after their teeth have to be mass fluoridated' but then one can also argue that as a public health measure it reduces teh overall disease burden and so it worthwhile.


----------



## Billyb (20 March 2011)

Initially I thought it would be hard to find the evidence that you requested so I wasn't going to be bothered but I found it *so easy* that I thought I'd post my findings. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20873281
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20415937
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20406153
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20156234
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20088224
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19627654
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19169572


I could go on and on and on, every abstract I clicked supported fluoride.

Anyone who suggests fluoride doesn't strengthen tooth enamel (and reduce it's risk of tooth decay) is smoking something, that much is _guaranteed_ and is the reason why toothpastes work.

Anyone who suggests that water fluoridation doesn't reduce dental caries at a population level ought to provide _good_ peer reviewed evidence (from reputable journals like I posted) to back up their opinion. Peer-reviewed articles are the highest form of evidence, if it's not peer-reviewed and you post it then it is not worth debating. 

If you ask me, the argument is whether it is ethical to fluoridate water, NOT it's effectiveness.

Which brings me back to my first point, which is just my opinion: 99.9% of the population should not miss out on the benefits of fluoridation just because 0.01% are worries about unproven side-effects.


----------



## medicowallet (20 March 2011)

Ruby said:


> Ah, Calliope, as Medicowallet fits at least 5 of the criteria very nicely, I can only draw the conclusion he must be a conspiracy theorist!
> 
> 1. Arrogance
> 2. Relentlessness
> ...




Nice,

Onto personal attacks again, whilst providing no evidence.

1. Yes, I am arrogant, it is why I am extremely successful
2. I have a lot of time, I do not work many hours per week, other people work for me.
3. I answer most if not all questions, especially ones worth answering (eg not conspiracy theory ones)
5. Don't even know what that is, but hey I'm big enough to take it on.
7. Withdraw???? why? because I am correct and there is no reasoing with conspiracy theorists.

Getting personal is one of the criteria you fulfil with vigor.

Edit - just read what the razr is... I am aghast at the suggestion that my points have gaping holes and that your points are water tight. Denial at its craziest. I am very glad you do not hold any position in regards to people's health.


----------



## medicowallet (20 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> *We have already established that cardiac benifits are derived from good dental hygene, not fluoridation per se.* If you are going to equate better cardiac condition from improved dental health as a result of fluoridation, then you have to include all these negative side effects of fluoridation to get a holistic cost benifit study... which we are keen to see.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Whiskers

I know that fluoridation causes fluorosis in some.

But it is you failure to understand even the most basic concepts of public health initiatives that blinds you. There is no way to have a coherent argument on the public health benefits of an intervention with somebody who does not understand what cost-benefit is.

I am aware of risk factors of diabetes etc but please, let us not get off topic. I have already mentioned that trying to change behaviours is an enormous task, perhaps you could read about it.

I don't care if "fluoride is not essential", I am aware of its public health benefits. Similar arguments could be made for many therapeutic interventions, but they are beneficial.


----------



## Whiskers (20 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> *I have no interest in the fluoride debate*.




*Yes that's clear*. 



> *I have been following the thread lately because I am interested in what type of people take up conspiracies.*




*Ok Calliope, I'll go off topic a bit just to help you deal with your monomania* *... I refer you back to...*



Whiskers said:


> _The links I provided are to reports by;_
> 
> _The US National Accademy of Sciences (NAA) http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer _
> The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) http://www.hhs.gov/
> ...




Are the NAA, HHS and EPA taking up conspiracies? 

That's an easy yes or no answer.


----------



## medicowallet (20 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Are the NAA, HHS and EPA taking up conspiracies?
> 
> That's an easy yes or no answer.




imo no.

But I also note: reduction in fluoridation, and not abolition.

Of course if natural fluoride levels are high, you do not need fluoridation, and/or you fluoridate to the lowest effective level that data suggests.

You seem to focus solely on fluorosis, why such a narrow interest?


----------



## Calliope (20 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> *Ok Calliope, I'll go off topic a bit just to help you deal with your monomania*



*

Thanks Whiskers. You are a classic case of monomania, or maybe just a bore.




			10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question. 

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore. 


Click to expand...


*


----------



## Whiskers (20 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Whiskers
> 
> I know that fluoridation causes fluorosis in some.
> 
> But it is you failure to understand even the most basic concepts of public health initiatives that blinds you. There is no way to have a coherent argument on the public health benefits of an intervention with somebody who does not understand what cost-benefit is.




My degree was in Business, majoring in accounting and law... as part of my business I have designed spreadsheet cash flow and profitability charts for different business scenarios, so I can assure you I know what a cost benefit analysis is. 

As I said before the limited cost benefit analysis's in your references refer specifically to the efficacy of fluoridation to reduce caries, NOT the holistic efficiency of fluoridation. 

An odd analysis referees to dental issues such as fluorosis and enamel cracking, but dismissing the feelings of more and more people suffering embarrassment from those conditions that people like you and further insult by demanding they are a necessary side effect of fluoridation for the greater public good. 



> I am aware of risk factors of diabetes etc but please, let us not get off topic. I have already mentioned that trying to change behaviors is an enormous task, perhaps you could read about it.




I also did a considerable amount of extra curricular courses in the field of Psychology and have spent most of my working life in a supervisory or managerial role, so I know a bit about managing people.



> I don't care if "fluoride is not essential",




Well, "care" is the operative word alright. It's at the heart of the integrity of the medical professions. 



> I am aware of its public health benefits.




Well, you espouse the caries prevention benefits, but that is a world apart from a holistic appraisal of the health benefits, not to mention the holistic cost benefit to the community.



> Similar arguments could be made for many therapeutic interventions, but they are beneficial.




But "therapeutic interventions" are prescribed and monitored by health professionals on a case by case basis. They are NOT mass medicated on the whole population whether they need it or not.




> Originally Posted by *medicowallet*
> 
> 
> imo no.




Thank you for acknowledging that medicowallet.



> But I also note: reduction in fluoridation, and not abolition.
> 
> Of course if natural fluoride levels are high, you do not need fluoridation, and/or you fluoridate to the lowest effective level that data suggests.
> 
> You seem to focus solely on fluorosis, why such a narrow interest?




Fluorosis is the main issue that the fluoridation industry has data on and accepts as an side effect of fluoridation, albeit that it has dismissed it as a necessary side effect for some in the greater good. 

The reports I referred to are acknowledging the growing number of fluorisis victims that are very angry about having to suffer this affliction and the increasing cost of repairing it.

The other issue is the contribution of residential tap water to total ingested fluoride is lower that it was in the past. More people, especially children, are getting widely varying dosage of fluoride because of the compounding effects of fluoride in the processing of almost all food using fluoridated water supplies.

Sure, these US flag bearers on the issue are not advocating abolition (yet), but by expressing serious concerns about current fluoridation rates and recommending they be halved to a fixed max ceiling of .7 mg/l is the thin edge of the wedge... a major reversal of ideology towards fluoridation.


----------



## Julia (20 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> It reduces the cost because public dental care in QLD is very expensive, and those costs on taxpayers will reduce as the benefits of fluoride have time to develop in our younger ones. (far more money is spent here on dental care than other states because our DMFT rates are so much higher).



Far more money is spent in Qld than in other States???  Well, considering the waiting list for a simple examination in the regional area where I live is more than six years, the fact that it might be more than other States is irrelevant in comparison to its utter inadequacy.
I worked in the welfare sector for many years and clients were distinguishable more by their rotten or non-existent teeth than by any other characteristic.
People on low incomes simply cannot afford to see private dentists.  If anyone can explain why one's teeth should not be covered under Medicare, I'd be interested.
Adequate dental health is every bit as important as the health of any other part of the body.


----------



## Billyb (20 March 2011)

Whiskers, I would be interested in reading your response to my posts and the abstracts I provided...

Also, fluorosis is hardly an issue with the level of fluoride in the drinking water, that's a very weak argument against it's use per se. Most Australians have had access to fluoridated water for years and there is very little fluorosis in our community. As a dentist I see it rarely and have never ever seen a case beyond mild/not a problem.



Julia said:


> Far more money is spent in Qld than in other States???  Well, considering the waiting list for a simple examination in the regional area where I live is more than six years, the fact that it might be more than other States is irrelevant in comparison to its utter inadequacy.




Yes Public Dental health is an issue, I recognize that. But it's nationwide, not just QLD. 
This is probably one of the reasons the Bligh Govnt introduced the fluoridation legislation.


----------



## medicowallet (21 March 2011)

Whiskers, 

I think that I have exhausted all logic with you.

I will conclude by stating that 

1. Flouridation of water is a public health initiative recommended by the WHO.
2. The cost benefit is in favour of fluoridation
3. An understanding of public health initiatives and medical health concerns is important in formulating an informed opinion.
4. Fluorosis is not a significant health concern compared to the medical health conditions that are prevented by fluoridation, as supported by the WHO and numerous studies.
5. Peer reviewed published articles do not show that the costs of fluoridation outweigh the benefits.
6. Benefits to the majority sometimes result in negative outcomes to the minority.
7. Anyone who actually believes that in this time and age that a council/government would intentionally "poison" the general public (ie not be governed by a cost-benefit analysis) is definitely a candidate for being a conspiracy theorist. Surely the lawyers would be on the bandwagon if this was not the case.
8. You and others have failed on numerous occasions to provide any peer reviewed published articles outlining why fluoridation is not an appropriate public health initiative.
9. People can choose to drink the water, or purify it etc.


I hope that you do one day read some peer reviewed studies on fluoridation.


----------



## pixel (21 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> 1. Flouridation of water is a public health initiative recommended by the WHO.
> 2. The cost benefit is in favour of fluoridation
> 3. An understanding of public health initiatives and medical health concerns is important in formulating an informed opinion.
> 4. Fluorosis is not a significant health concern compared to the medical health conditions that are prevented by fluoridation, as supported by the WHO and numerous studies.
> ...



 re 6 and 9:
If the minority that is condemned to suffer negative outcomes were informed about their choice, I would be far more inclined to accept your assertion about the greater common good. The problem is, none of your "peers" I've taken my complaints to, was even vaguely interested in taking notice. 
The least I would expect from a "health _*professional*_" is to listen, communicate, follow up and *include the cost of mitigation* - filters to purify, for example - in the CBA. Every other minority is protected by laws against discrimination. Shame there's no basic human right to *"clean"* food and water. Could it be that adding the costs of such a right might tip the balance against the peer-reviewed accepted wisdom of WHO officials?


----------



## Judd (21 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Far more money is spent in Qld than in other States???  Well, considering the waiting list for a simple examination in the regional area where I live is more than six years, the fact that it might be more than other States is irrelevant in comparison to its utter inadequacy.
> I worked in the welfare sector for many years and clients were distinguishable more by their rotten or non-existent teeth than by any other characteristic.
> People on low incomes simply cannot afford to see private dentists.  If anyone can explain why one's teeth should not be covered under Medicare, I'd be interested.
> Adequate dental health is every bit as important as the health of any other part of the body.




If you browse the constitution, you will see that in May 1946 an amendment (Section 51 Paragraph (xxiiiA)) was made to give the Commonwealth the power to provide dental services.  Reason it doesn't is probably (a) dental services are traditionally the responsibility of State Governments, eg public dental hospitals and (b) cost.  How much do you think a single dental handpiece will cost let alone one dental chair - all imported of course.  Over $800 for the first for a base model and name your price for the second.  Then surgical lights, autoclaves, staff, dental assistants, surgi-packs, radiology units.  Ain't enough dentists in Oz to met the demand anyway.


----------



## medicowallet (21 March 2011)

pixel said:


> re 6 and 9:
> If the minority that is condemned to suffer negative outcomes were informed about their choice, I would be far more inclined to accept your assertion about the greater common good. The problem is, none of your "peers" I've taken my complaints to, was even vaguely interested in taking notice.
> The least I would expect from a "health _*professional*_" is to listen, communicate, follow up and *include the cost of mitigation* - filters to purify, for example - in the CBA. Every other minority is protected by laws against discrimination. Shame there's no basic human right to *"clean"* food and water. Could it be that adding the costs of such a right might tip the balance against the peer-reviewed accepted wisdom of WHO officials?




Valid points.

1. I think that whenever fluoride is added to water, there is sufficient debate to alert residents to its introduction.

2. Perhaps my "peers" are not the most appropriate people to deal with your concerns.

3. Does clean water also mean no chlorine? and no other treatments?


----------



## medicowallet (21 March 2011)

Julia said:


> If anyone can explain why one's teeth should not be covered under Medicare, I'd be interested.
> Adequate dental health is every bit as important as the health of any other part of the body.




I agree, I think that most people do not know the ramifications of good dental health.

I also think we are primarily the cause of this, with our horrible diets and poor attention to dental health, however some of my friends with poor dental health spend a lot of money on things that are not essential and not on their dental health.

I would like to see dental care covered by medicare, but unfortunately dentists would cost too much to subsidise (the government already screws doctors, dentists would be too smart to do the same). 

There is also a massive shortage of dentists, and even the new uni courses opened over the past few years have no hope of making any indentation.

So the solutions would be:

1. Train more dentists (hard to do, dentistry is the most expensive uni course to facilitate.
2. Empower people to take good care of their teeth.

Number 2 would be the best, but obviously, campaigns have failed miserably in the past, so fluoridation is an excellent alternative to people taking care of themselves.


----------



## Whiskers (21 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> Whiskers, I would be interested in reading your response to my posts and the abstracts I provided....




Thank you for your interest in my opinion Billyb.



Billyb said:


> If you ask me, the argument is whether it is ethical to fluoridate water, NOT it's effectiveness.




I'm glad you have an interest in the ethics of fluoridation.

Let's Analise the evidence from the top.



Billyb said:


> As an example, look at DMFT statistics for QLD (only 5% fluoridated) versus the rest of Australia (which is between 70 to 100% fluoridated). I don't have time to look through all the literature and provide all the links here. Here is a QLD health article from a quick Google search if you're interested but I accept that it may be biased..
> 
> http://www.health.qld.gov.au/oralhealth/documents/31292.pdf
> 
> ...




Firstly, the data the Qld government relied upon in 
http://www.health.qld.gov.au/oralhealth/documents/31292.pdf was from the [FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]_*Dental health differences between boys and girls *_[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]_*The Child Dental Health Survey, Australia 2000 *_[/FONT][/FONT]http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/pdf_07/cdhs2000.pdf


The Queensland Gov, in your link, and in their public campaign, grossly misrepresented the facts (page 12, par 3.2.1) with; 

_The introduction of community water fluoridation in other Australian states has seen the caries prevalence *markedly decrease* in comparison to the disease levels experienced in Queensland, as shown in Figure 4._​
​and
_Levels of tooth decay for Queensland children are *much higher* than_ _those in other Australian states and territories, and the gap appears to be __widening._​ 
​Figure 4 is the chart well circulated that did not come from the 2000 survey, but was a of Qld manufacture of 12 yo only to graphically distort the big picture. The raw data is below. You will notice* Qld is not substantially higher* than other Aus states.

As for cost effectiveness, they say (p 17);
*3.5 Cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation*​​_Water fluoridation is a cost-effective means of preventing dental caries. The World Health Organisation concludes that community water fluoridation is one of the most cost effective means of delivering fluoride to a large number of individuals..._​In reading the fine print carefully, you will see that the cost benefit analysis only compares the cost of fluoridation against the estimated cost of repairing caries... no other health, environmental or economic considerations.

Following on this gross distortion and misrepresentation, they claim; 

_The projected savings to the Queensland community, over 30 years, is estimated to be up to $1.1 billion._​​They cite _Impact Analysis of Water Fluoridation (2002). Jaguar Consulting Pty Ltd_, _Melbourne_ as the source... BUT it's an unpublished report. I have never been able to find it to ascertain the terms of reference and methodology.

Finally, on the issue of methodology, even the _Australian Research Center for Population Oral Health The University of Adelaide (P1);_
_*[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Sampling*_
[/FONT][/FONT]_The data for the Child Dental Health Survey are derived from routine examinations of_
_children enrolled in the school dental services._
​_*We know about the variability of School dental sources*... not the most accurate and reliable data source, but probably the best ARCPOH could get... AND;_

_*Data analysis and weighting of data* _​
*National data contained in this report consist of counts, means, standard deviations and percentages that have been weighted to represent the relevant state- and territory specific population of children aged 4–15 years...*
 
_Where computed state or territory age-specific indices resulted in a relative standard error exceeding 40%, or the percentage of children sampled was considered very low, the age group for that jurisdiction was excluded from the analysis. As a result, 15-year-old children from New South Wales (sample n = 307) were excluded, as were 4-year-old children from the Australian Capital Territory (sample n = 7) and 4-year-old and 15-year-old children from Victoria (sample n = 68 and 7, respectively)._
​_Hence, results for 4-year-old children (which exclude children from Victoria and the_
_Australian Capital Territory) and 15-year-old children (which exclude children from New_
_South Wales and Victoria)* should be interpreted with due care* and with appreciation that *they may not be representative of the Australian child population*._​​​_*So even though this is the best data we have, the authors heavily qualified their findings*. Some thing that the strong proponents of fluoridation fail to do, hence the growing backlash as I referred to from fluoridation in the US as I referred to back in post #315 and #428._


----------



## pixel (21 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Valid points.
> 
> 1. I think that whenever fluoride is added to water, there is sufficient debate to alert residents to its introduction.
> 
> ...



 Thanks MW,

Not so sure about 1.

Not intended to take "your" peers too literally in #2; I don't know enough of your background. Sadly though, I have participated in several research projects, including medical ones, to maintain, let's call it "a healthy skepticism" wrt framework and limits. It's far easier to obtain funding for a project that promi$e$ $ucce$$ful industrial applications, than it is for something that mitigates marginal side effects. 

In response to 3: Yes, I do see chlorine in a similar light - at least for drinking water. The filter I've been using for about two decades (not a single kidney stone in that time!) includes one reverse osmosis stage. The initial installation (20 years ago) cost about $1200, plus around $150 annual maintenance. It would be an interesting exercise to calculate potential cost savings if this technology were implemented on an industrial scale, rather than left to each individual household. But that's probably a pipedream


----------



## Whiskers (21 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Whiskers,
> 4. Fluorosis is not a significant health concern compared to the medical health conditions that are prevented by fluoridation, as supported by the WHO and numerous studies.
> 5. Peer reviewed published articles do not show that the costs of fluoridation outweigh the benefits.




*From the US Department of Health and Human Services, 41% of US 12 to 15 yo suffer fluorosis.*
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2004.
_NHANES assessed the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis among persons, aged 6 to 49 years. Twenty-three percent had dental fluorosis of which the vast majority was very mild or mild. Approximately 2% of persons had moderate dental fluorosis, and less than 1% had severe. Prevalence was higher among younger persons and ranged from 41% among adolescents aged 12 – 15 years to 9% among adults, aged 40 – 49 years._


_The prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis among 12 – 15 year olds in 1999-2004 were compared to estimates from the Oral Health of United States Children Survey, 1986-87, which was the first national survey to include measures of dental fluorosis...._

_In 1986-87 and 1999-2004 *the prevalence of dental fluorosis* was 23% and 41%, respectively, among adolescents aged 12 to 15. (BeltrÃ¡n-Aguilar ED, et al, 2010a). Similarly, the prevalence of very mild fluorosis (17.2% and 28.5%), mild fluorosis (4.1% and 8.6%) and moderate and severe fluorosis combined (1.3% and 3.6%) *have increased*._

_http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html_​*That would be equivilant to over 800,000 Australians suffering from mild to severe fluorosis.*



> 6. Benefits to the majority sometimes result in negative outcomes to the minority.
> 9. People can choose to drink the water, or purify it etc.




But unfortunately that minority is increasing to pretty substantial numbers now forcing a back down by the proponents of Fluoridation and the Gov authorities.

So are you going to pay say $1,000 each for those to avoid a condidtion inflicted on them by fluoridation to purify it? That would be at least $ 800,000,000 just for the 3.6% likely to be moderate to severely afflicted.

If all Aus's knew the truth of their likelyhood to develop fluorosis and say 41% of them decide they want to purify their water, thats 9.2 million people at a cost of $9.2Billion.

Since fluorosis in incurable, what is the cost of regular whitening to cover over it, or have veneers fitted?

Show me where the cost benefit analysis that takes this into account.


----------



## Billyb (21 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Thank you for your interest in my opinion Billyb.
> 
> I'm glad you have an interest in the ethics of fluoridation.
> 
> Let's Analise the evidence from the top.




I will accept that the QLD Health article evidence is not of high quality. However, you have totally ignored all the other evidence available which is of a higher quality (see my abstracts for a start). 



Whiskers said:


> Since fluorosis in incurable, what is the cost of regular whitening to cover over it, or have veneers fitted?
> 
> Show me where the cost benefit analysis that takes this into account.




Mild Fluorosis is not an issue, and even that is uncommon. You cannot get severe fluorosis from 1ppm fluoridated water, only from ingesting toothpaste, fluoride tablets etc. The evidence you quoted is poor quality evidence as it doesn't compare the results to non-fluoridated areas. You may be surprised to hear that fluorosis also occurs in non-fluoridated areas.

If you want to be convincing, you need to stop quoting National Health agencies, and start quoting high quality evidence like peer-reviewed journal articles/meta-analysis etc. Until you do, your arguments wont stand up and are not convincing.

I also find it funny that ther recent article you just quoted actually states that _"Community water fluoridation is a major factor responsible for the decline of the prevalence and severity of dental caries (tooth decay) during the second half of the 20th century._. So your own evidence that you are providing is actually totally in conflict with your argument.


----------



## Whiskers (21 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> I will accept that the QLD Health article evidence is not of high quality.




Well, I guess an understatement is better than a denial. 



> However, you have totally ignored all the other evidence available which is of a higher quality (see my abstracts for a start).




You mean and all those other dental associations.

Well, The Australian Research Center for Population Oral Health (ARCPOH), where the_ The Child Dental Health Survey, Australia 2000._ that I referred to above is probably the premier source in Aus.

As for the American Dental Association, they were the organization where the pro fluoridation lobby first infiltrated and corrupted the US medical regulatory system. You may be aware that with the momentum across the US contradicting their earlier so called harmless and (limited) cost benefit claims for fluoridation, their leverage arm, the Division of Oral Health (DOH) has just been transfered from a Division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to a branch of the Division of Adult and Community Health.

Their biased representation in US medical decision making is being watered down... and they are filthy about it. http://www.ada.org/sections/advocacy/pdfs/ada_letter_to_cdc_on_elimination_of_doh_11jan11.pdf



> Mild Fluorosis is not an issue, and even that is uncommon. You cannot get severe fluorosis from 1ppm fluoridated water,




The fluoridated water supplies that my references cited are regulated between .7 mg/l to 1.2 mg/l. If you read it you would see that the cumulative effect of fluoridation plus the compounding effect of fluoride in the water of nearly all processed food and drinks plus other unavoidable enviornmental fluoride pollution multiplies up the doseage indescriminately.



> only from ingesting toothpaste, fluoride tablets etc.




Rubbish... there are plenty of places where excess fluoride in the environment and naturally in water supplies causes fluorosis and bone disease etc, China is a bad case, not to mention increasing fluoride contamination from some pesticides and pollution from industry. 



> The evidence you quoted is poor quality evidence as it doesn't compare the results to non-fluoridated areas. You may be surprised to hear that fluorosis also occurs in non-fluoridated areas.




Often by parents unwittingly using fluoridated tooth paste on under two year olds... as WHO etc advise against... and children swallowing tooth paste and other environmental pollution. 



> If you want to be convincing, you need to stop quoting National Health agencies, and start quoting high quality evidence like peer-reviewed journal articles/meta-analysis etc. Until you do, your arguments wont stand up and are not convincing.




Well, the days of the public, and gov falling to fallacious dogma by peer-reviewed journals esp. the once all powerful American Dental Association have gone, gone, gone.

The ones your peer organisations have to convince are the politicians of our gov's. That's getting harder in the rest of the world including the US, because of the past misrepresentation of the safety and cost benefit of fluoridation. 



> I also find it funny that ther recent article you just quoted actually states that _"Community water fluoridation is a major factor responsible for the decline of the prevalence and severity of dental caries (tooth decay) during the second half of the 20th century._. So your own evidence that you are providing is actually totally in conflict with your argument.




Not at all, it's the basis of my argument that the fluoridation lobby claim a decline in caries is good, but ignore the severity and cost of the side effects that people were duped into thinking were non existent.


----------



## Billyb (21 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Well, I guess an understatement is better than a denial.
> 
> Rubbish... there are plenty of places where excess fluoride in the environment and naturally in water supplies causes fluorosis and bone disease etc, China is a bad case, not to mention increasing fluoride contamination from some pesticides and pollution from industry.




Few comments
1. I haven't seen any of this 'disastrous fluorosis' that you keep referring to, yet. Only very mild cases (uncommonly), where it doesn't matter and it doesn't bother the patient. The benefits of less dental caries (from water fluoridation) easily outweighs this small issue. Dental caries FAR MORE problematic/expensive than mild fluorosis therefore benefit outweighs risk

2. Please provide evidence for other health issues you refer to eg bone disease.


----------



## Julia (21 March 2011)

Billyb, I'm sure fluorosis can be quickly dismissed as insignificant by those who have not experienced it.

But for someone who has, having rotten looking brown teeth is immensely distressing.

Perhaps don't be quite so dismissive about something unless you've experienced the loss of self esteem and embarrassment incurred by significant fluorosis.


----------



## Whiskers (21 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> Few comments
> 1*. I haven't seen any of this 'disastrous fluorosis' that you keep referring to,* *yet*. Only very mild cases (uncommonly), where it doesn't matter and it doesn't bother the patient. The benefits of less dental caries (from water fluoridation) easily outweighs this small issue. Dental caries FAR MORE problematic/expensive than mild fluorosis therefore benefit outweighs risk




I suspect you haven't seen any bad cases yet... and I hope we never get to the worst stages before our gov's see the light.



> 2. Please provide evidence for other health issues you refer to eg bone disease.




I'm surprised [no I'm not] they didn't teach you about this in dentistry school.

Start here. There are some links off there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_fluorosis

Regional Environment Division, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Ibaraki, Japan: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533102/

More links here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=fluoride bone disease china

Also a recent news link: http://www.voanews.com/english/news...d-to-Fluoride-Disease-in-China-105447638.html


----------



## Billyb (21 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Billyb, I'm sure fluorosis can be quickly dismissed as insignificant by those who have not experienced it.
> 
> But for someone who has, having rotten looking brown teeth is immensely distressing.
> 
> Perhaps don't be quite so dismissive about something unless you've experienced the loss of self esteem and embarrassment incurred by significant fluorosis.




Well, I apologise if it's happened to you, but I assure you, the fluorosis risk here is taken _WAY out of proportion_. I see many patients with loss of self esteem due to tooth decay (basically everyday), but can't remember the last time fluorosis was the cause of loss of self esteem. Loss of self esteem due to dental decay =99.999%, loss of self esteem due to fluorosis = 0.001%. Hopefully those numbers put things into perspective for you - dental decay is a much bigger issue than fluorosis!!!.

Come on guys, if you wanna really argue against water fluoridation, bring on the bigger 'so called' issues. Otherwise this is just a pointless argument going in circles.


----------



## Billyb (21 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> I suspect you haven't seen any bad cases yet... and I hope we never get to the worst stages before our gov's see the light.
> 
> I'm surprised [no I'm not] they didn't teach you about this in dentistry school.




I mean real evidence to support the hypothesis that water fluoridation causes clinical bone disease, i.e research, peer reviewed journal articles etc. 

If you can't find any, you need to rethink why you believe it to be so.

You may need to look into the hierarchy of evidence, start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence

I wont be convinced until I see real evidence , not some news article or wikipedia article that talks about skeletal fluorosis in general.


----------



## Whiskers (22 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> I mean real evidence to support the hypothesis that water fluoridation causes clinical bone disease, i.e research, peer reviewed journal articles etc.
> 
> If you can't find any, you need to rethink why you believe it to be so.
> 
> ...




Billy, Billy, Billy... there are none so blind as those who do not want to see!!!

Follow the links even wiki will lead to peer reviewed journals if you scroll down to the references.

What, do you think ALL, even anecdotal references are conspiracies and not worth investigating?

PubMed was your favorite source before. The links I gave include several from PubMed about bone disease and fluorosis from excess fluorine/fluoride intake from various sources including water, fluoridation, food (high soil fluorine taken up by tea plants) and combustion of high fluorine/fluoride products. 



You should know from your science subjects that:

Fluorine is a very pervasive substance, the most reactive of all elements and no chemical substance is capable of freeing fluorine from any of its compounds.
Fluorine compounds (fluorocarbons) once used in refrigeration, air conditioning and aerosol sprays caused damage to the earth's ozone layer and have been phased out.
Fluorine/fluoride toxity is accumulative and irreversable.
It doesn't matter what form fluorine/fluorides are in, if it gets into your system it's cumulative effects become toxic and irreversable.


----------



## derty (22 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> [*]Fluorine is a very pervasive substance, the most reactive of all elements and no chemical substance is capable of freeing fluorine from any of its compounds.



So how can an element be the most reactive of all elements while at the same time bonding so tightly that no chemical substance is capable of freeing it from any of its compounds? (though not really sure what a chemical substances compound is)   

You also say that 'Fluorine/fluoride toxity is accumulative and irreversable' and  'if it gets into your system it's cumulative effects become toxic and irreversable.' However we excrete F in our urine. Fluoride ion is readily absorbed by the stomach, intestines and *excreted through urine*. And studies have shown that at the usual levels of fluoridation of water the concentration of fluoride in urine is similar to its concentration in those persons' drinking water. 




Just lurked though the last few pages of this thread and I have to concur with the arguments presented by medico and billyb. They seem to me to be by far the most logical. There is no argument that fluorine makes some deadly compounds and that at elevated concentrations it is toxic, though at the concentrations in the public water supply it is a beneficial additive. 

If there were any firm evidence of significant health effects (other than occasional mild fluorosis) at the concentrations found in public waters then the lawyers would be coming out of the woodwork and we would have seen at least one successful class action.


----------



## Whiskers (22 March 2011)

derty said:


> So how can an element be the most reactive of all elements while at the same time bonding so tightly that no chemical substance is capable of freeing it from any of its compounds? (though not really sure what a chemical substances compound is) .




Hi derty, elemental fluorine is the most reactive element because of its very strong oxidization properties. You cannot release elemental fluorine (atom) from a compound (molecule) without electrolysis. 



> You also say that 'Fluorine/fluoride toxity is accumulative and irreversable' and 'if it gets into your system it's cumulative effects become toxic and irreversible.' However we excrete F in our urine. Fluoride ion is readily absorbed by the stomach, intestines and *excreted through urine*. And studies have shown that at the usual levels of fluoridation of water the concentration of fluoride in urine is similar to its concentration in those persons' drinking water.




Fluorine compounds do pass through our system in urine, but that part that is absorbed by the body stays absorbed and accumulates in various places particularly where it can easily displace iodine.



> If there were any firm evidence of significant health effects (other than occasional mild fluorosis) at the concentrations found in public waters then the lawyers would be coming out of the woodwork and we would have seen at least one successful class action




This has been said before by medicowallet... BUT it's not true.

The Qld legislation at http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2008/08AC012.pdf specifically indemnifies the gov and potable water suppliers from any civil action under *Part 9, Matters relating to liability and indemnity.*


Provided they abide by the prescribed rate which is up to 1.5 mg/l in Qld there can be no cause of action against them. This is higher than the US rates where their research found too high fluorosis and double the .7 mg/l they are now recommending as a max.


But, Qld has already had a major excess fluoride incident (31 mg/l) as a result of negligence but guess what, they would not prosecute. http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/ehu/fluoride_investigate.pdf


I expect all govs are similar.


----------



## Ruby (22 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> Few comments
> 1. I haven't seen any of this 'disastrous fluorosis' that you keep referring to, yet. Only very mild cases (uncommonly), where it doesn't matter and it doesn't bother the patient.




Billy, I don't know where you are looking, but I see people with ugly brown mottled teeth *every day*.  It *does *matter and it *does *bother people.



Billyb said:


> Well, I apologise if it's happened to you, but I assure you, the fluorosis risk here is taken _WAY out of proportion_. I see many patients with loss of self esteem due to tooth decay (basically everyday), but can't remember the last time fluorosis was the cause of loss of self esteem. Loss of self esteem due to dental decay =99.999%, loss of self esteem due to fluorosis = 0.001%. Hopefully those numbers put things into perspective for you - dental decay is a much bigger issue than fluorosis!!!.




Have you actually done a study to determine the loss of self-esteem due to fluorosis compared to the loss of self-esteem due to dental caries.  Has it been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal?  No?

I have suffered from severe dental caries since I was very young, and it has not been the cause of *any *loss of self esteem, because my front teeth are still intact and no-one can see the extent of the damage to the rest.  I would have suffered extreme loss of self-esteem had my front teeth been brown and mottled.   I know a number of young, otherwise very attractive women who suffer great loss of self esteem because they have dental fluorosis.   To dismiss it as trivial and of no account is arrogant in the extreme.


----------



## Billyb (22 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Billy, Billy, Billy... there are none so blind as those who do not want to see!!!
> 
> Follow the links even wiki will lead to peer reviewed journals if you scroll down to the references.




Let us go back to your original argument. You oppose water fluoridation because you believe _by fluoridating our water supples at 1ppm, we will get side effects and certain diseases/illnesses_. THIS (in italics) is what you need to provide evidence/references for, not other irrelevent things which are only indirectly related.

For example, you posted a reference about coal burning in china leading to fluorosis. Coal burning in China is not direct evidence that water fluoridation (at 1ppm) IN Australia causes the side effects and diseases that you talk about. This is irrelevent stuff and a telltale sign that you are struggling to find real evidence to back up your erroneous belief. You need to then question why you believe what you believe.

Let me give you a example of direct evidence to support my statement:
I believe _water fluoridation at safe levels do not increase rates of bone cancer_. Here is my references: 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405037/?tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1052225/?tool=pmcentrez

BAM, I have given you direct evidence. This is how you need to present your evidence if you want to be convincing.

I suspect that perhaps you are just struggling to find evidence to support your belief..



Whiskers said:


> Fluorine is a very pervasive substance, the most reactive of all elements and no chemical substance is capable of freeing fluorine from any of its compounds.




Firstly, fluoride is completely different to fluorine. Fluorine, pervasive? Are you kidding me? Fluorine doesn't exist on its own on earth!!!! Again, irrelevent to the direct topic, you are sidestepping and now posing strawmen and incorrect arguments. 



Ruby said:


> Billy, I don't know where you are looking, but I see people with ugly brown mottled teeth *every day*.  It *does *matter and it *does *bother people.




No offense, but unless you are a dentist, you would not be able to differentiate between mottling due to dental fluorosis and tooth decay. 
I assure you, most (if not all) of the 'mottled teeth' you are seeing is dental decay, NOT fluorosis. 

You really don't understand how rare severe fluorosis actually is in Australia. Very very rare, trust me. Come work with me for a day in the public system (I treat welfare patients), then you might believe me.


----------



## Whiskers (22 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> Let us go back to your original argument. You oppose water fluoridation because you believe _by fluoridating our water supples at 1ppm, we will get side effects and certain diseases/illnesses_. THIS (in italics) is what you need to provide evidence/references for, not other irrelevent things which are only indirectly related.
> 
> For example, you posted a reference about coal burning in china leading to fluorosis. Coal burning in China is not direct evidence that water fluoridation (at 1ppm) IN Australia causes the side effects and diseases that you talk about.




The (my) point is that Fluoridation is indiscriminate and collects everyone. It also compounds the dosage of fluoride per person via processed foods and drinks etc made from fluoridated water. The individual dosage of fluoride is further increased by other fluorine compound contaminates in the environment.

_http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html_

...thinks like pesticide residue, plants and animals absorb fluorine compounds as well as atmospheric fluorine (compound) pollution such as industry or localised coal bricks or other substances burnt coated with high fluorine compounds.

Even the World Health Organisation (WHO), recognises 
Skeletal Fluorosis. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/fluorosis/en/
*Fluorosis*

*The disease and how it affects people*​_Ingestion of excess fluoride, most commonly in drinking-water, can cause fluorosis which affects the teeth and bones. Moderate amounts lead to dental effects, but long-term ingestion of large amounts can lead to potentially severe skeletal problems..._

_Chronic high-level exposure to fluoride can lead to skeletal fluorosis. In skeletal fluorosis, fluoride accumulates in the bone progressively over many years. The early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, include stiffness and pain in the joints. In severe cases, the bone structure may change and ligaments may calcify, with resulting impairment of muscles and pain._

_*Acute high-level exposure to fluoride causes immediate effects of abdominal pain, excessive saliva, nausea and vomiting*. Seizures and muscle spasms may also occur..._​These are the symptoms widely reported in Pine Rivers (Brisbane) shortly after the introduction of fluoridation. The cause was eventually revealed as an excessive overdose of fluoride, 31 mg/l http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/docu...nvestigate.pdf
_*People affected by fluorosis are often exposed to multiple sources of fluoride*, such as in food, water, air (due to gaseous industrial waste), and excessive use of toothpaste. However, drinking water is typically the most significant source. A person's diet, general state of health as well as the body's ability to dispose of fluoride all affect how the exposure to fluoride manifests itself. (Source: WHO)_​


> Firstly, fluoride is completely different to fluorine.




Only slightly different. Fluoride is the ionic form of fluorine.



> Fluorine, pervasive?




Pervasive: Having the quality or tendency to pervade or permeate.


Yes, Fluorine and many of it's compounds including Fluoride are very pervasive in the body. 

They react with calcium to cause hypocalcemia and
displaces iodine which is responsible for thyroxine manufacture for the control of metabolic rate and essential to the normal development of the fetal nervous system to name a couple.



> Are you kidding me? Fluorine doesn't exist on its own on earth!!!!




*WRONG! *

It does not occur naturally, but it is manufactured by electrolysis for numerous applications. 



> No offense, but unless you are a dentist, you would not be able to differentiate between mottling due to dental fluorosis and tooth decay.




No offense... but based on your poor understanding of the science of fluorine, I'm beginning to wonder if you can't tell the difference between decay and mild and severe fluorosis. 

Actually decay is a natural consequence of severe fluorosis because the internal composition of tooth tissue is so badly weakened and the enamel cracked, by excess fluoride ingestion, that decay sets in.


----------



## medicowallet (22 March 2011)

Once this thread realises that fluorosis really is insignificant in the realms of the health benefits, some constructive debate may eventuate.

When people realise that there are some extremely disadvantaged people, less educated people and people with less initiative, who stare down the barrel of some horrendous, expensive to treat (to the taxpayer) disorders as the result of poor dental health the better.

Until then I shall continue to read the fluorosis debate, with the respect it deserves, whilst contemplating the real health burdens of society.


----------



## Julia (22 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> Well, I apologise if it's happened to you,



Where did I say it had happened to me?



> I see many patients with loss of self esteem due to tooth decay (basically everyday),



So how have you established this loss of self esteem?  Do you do a survey on the psyche of all your patients?
You later stated that you work in the public system.
After many years of working with disadvantaged people in the welfare system (I have previously commented that they were more distinguished by their rotten teeth than any other characteristic) I can think of dozens of reasons for their self esteem being low, not just their uncared for teeth.



> but can't remember the last time fluorosis was the cause of loss of self esteem. Loss of self esteem due to dental decay =99.999%, loss of self esteem due to fluorosis = 0.001%. Hopefully those numbers put things into perspective for you - dental decay is a much bigger issue than fluorosis!!!.



Without wishing to discount your own anecdotal experience, I'd point out that it's just that, anecdotal.  However, you may be able to quote valid research which has measured the comparative psychological  unhappiness between caries and fluorosis.

And you continually ignore my fundamental objection to fluoride in our water supply, i.e. I am not arguing about whether it reduces decay or not, but my absolute objection is to the mass medication of a whole population.
The addition of chlorine is quite different.  Without this water would not be safe to drink.

But that is a totally different matter from adding a compound to water, something we all must have every day, when the perfectly feasible option exists of those who want to consume it can do so by taking a fluoride supplement.

We all know that iodine helps to prevent goitre.  If we are concerned about this we can take supplemental iodine, and use iodised salt.  But using your argument re fluoride, we should be adding iodine to the water supply.  And then maybe the fat soluble vitamins because surely that would be for the overall health of the population?
Where would it end?


----------



## pixel (22 March 2011)

Julia said:


> I am not arguing about whether it reduces decay or not, but my absolute objection is to the mass medication of a whole population.
> The addition of chlorine is quite different.  Without this water would not be safe to drink.
> 
> But that is a totally different matter from adding a compound to water, something we all must have every day, when the perfectly feasible option exists of those who want to consume it can do so by taking a fluoride supplement.
> ...



 Finally one contribution that cuts to the core of this entire debate.
Thank you, Julia. You've summed it up.


----------



## medicowallet (22 March 2011)

Julia said:


> We all know that iodine helps to prevent goitre.  If we are concerned about this we can take supplemental iodine, and use iodised salt.  But using your argument re fluoride, we should be adding iodine to the water supply.  And then maybe the fat soluble vitamins because surely that would be for the overall health of the population?
> Where would it end?




Problem with iodine is that there are genuine people that iodine in the diet may affect health, plus it may not be feasable to add it to water (chemistry/economics)

Fluoridation results in improved dental outcomes and better health.
People can also choose whether or not to drink the water, and some do so, the vast majority of people have no problem with it, so all we would be doing if we gave in to the miniscule vocal conspiracy theorists, is increasing health costs, and jeopardising people's health.

I restate that there are many things people have to do as determined by government, that they do not want to do. 

for example there is no way I want to pay a carbon tax, but sure I will have to pay it if the Labor party, i mean greens, get their way.


----------



## pixel (22 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> if we gave in to the miniscule vocal conspiracy theorists, is increasing health costs, and jeopardising people's health.



 So, that is the solution: Rather than taking note of legitimate objections, we're marginalised as "miniscule vocal conspiracy theorists". 

Mate, earlier on I may have had some respect for you as a person, accepting that the two of us could have different opinions without ill will. Your discounting sincere arguments as "conspiracy theories" I find infuriating in the extreme. It seems I was wrong after all, and you are no different from the lipopygian chairwarming Big Brother types that "know best" and the unwashed masses better like the idea.

No further comment.


----------



## Billyb (23 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Even the World Health Organisation (WHO), recognises
> Skeletal Fluorosis. .




Mate, of course skeletal fluorosis is real, if you ingest lots of fluoride over time you will get it.  But you are saying water fluoridation at _safe _levels (like in Australia) is causing it. You still haven't found any evidence to support your belief, and I'm underlining this sentence to show others that there is no evidence to back up what you are saying.  As a matter of fact, the evidence shows the opposite: that there is no significant correlation between water fuoridation at 1ppm and bone disease.

I don't want other people reading your post and thinking what you are saying is true, when in actual fact it's false.



Whiskers said:


> Yes, Fluorine and many of it's compounds including Fluoride are very pervasive in the body.




This is off topic and irrelevent so I'm not gonna go into much detail on this, except to say go back to your post, you will see you talked about fluorine as an element, fluorine as an element does not exist naturally on earth and is actually a gas.



Julia said:


> Where did I say it had happened to me?
> 
> And you continually ignore my fundamental objection to fluoride in our water supply, i.e. I am not arguing about whether it reduces decay or not, but my absolute objection is to the mass medication of a whole population.




I agree with another poster that you've  pointed the debate in the right direction there. The argument against fluoridation has a leg to stand in in the ethical arena, much more so than in the scientific arena.


----------



## Billyb (23 March 2011)

pixel said:


> Your discounting sincere arguments as "conspiracy theories" I find infuriating in the extreme.
> 
> No further comment.




Show me a (good) study that shows water fluoridation at concentrations used in Australia is causing bone disease, or cancer, or allegies, or whatever else people claim it causes. If someone can't prove things like that, then they shouldn't claim it to be true. Otherwise they are misleading people.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (23 March 2011)

I see we're back on to the "show me some studies...." lap again. Plenty of links from gov and private orgs peppered throughout this thread. 

My concerns with fluoride are simple:


Fluoride is a poison and not a nutrient as some on this thread imply.
There is no way for any supplier of water who places usually between 0.7-1.2 mg/L of fluoride has any idea of how much fluoride I ingest from other sources each day. It is therefore impossible for any supplier to provide a guarantee that I won't exceed supposedly "safe" levels and nor will they have any idea how long I may be exceeding those levels.
I want choice of clean water

The case is simple - remove fluoride and for those trying to convince others that fluoride is a nutrient - go get some fluoride tablets and pop them when you feel a need.

I wonder if water suppliers who contaminate their product with fluoride and claim it's safe as houses are willing *under Oath, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury document that fluoride poses no threat whatsoever?* Anyone want to send a lawful notice to their local water authority? I'm happy to post a template


----------



## Julia (23 March 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> [*]There is no way for any supplier of water who places usually between 0.7-1.2 mg/L of fluoride has any idea of how much fluoride I ingest from other sources each day. It is therefore impossible for any supplier to provide a guarantee that I won't exceed supposedly "safe" levels and nor will they have any idea how long I may be exceeding those levels.



Not to mention the fact that the 'authorities' who are placing fluoride in the water have, even in the short time since its introduction, got the dose wrong!


----------



## Whiskers (23 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> ...there is no significant correlation between water fuoridation at 1ppm and bone disease.




Again, another understatement is better than a denial. 



> This is off topic and irrelevent so I'm not gonna go into much detail on this, except to say go back to your post, you will see you talked about fluorine as an element, fluorine as an element does not exist naturally on earth and is actually a gas.




Not off topic at all. You earlier made the incorrect statement that fluorine is not found on earth and I corrected that. The natural form of fluorine, the compound fluorite, is widely processed into other fluorine compounds like hydrogen fluoride which is used in Sodium Fluoride tablets, toothpaste and fluoridation.



> I agree with another poster that you've pointed the debate in the right direction there. *The argument against fluoridation has a leg to stand in in the ethical arena*, much more so than in the scientific arena.




*Yes indeed*, so lets look at the ethical history of fluoridation.

Natural fluorite or it's synthetic cousin is used in aluminum and steel manufacture among other applications.

The most ethical point is that ever since ALCOA started covering up it's highly toxic fluoride emissions from it's US aluminum plants mid 1900's for which it was later prosecuted, it's scientist (not a doctor or dentist) started advocating fluoridation of water supplies on claims it effectively reduces tooth decay. Hell, it was an efficient way of dispersing their toxic concentrations of industrial waste.

ALCOA's lawyer (Ewing I think his name was) became head of the US Public Health Service... and guess what, the fluoridation industry boomed.

Hence my great pleasure at the removal of the American Dental Association (one of the last organisations infiltrated by ALCOA, with much influence) from any significant decision making authority in the US Public Health System. Why, because the early public fluoridation experiments were carried out on unknowing school children and their parents.

In summary the history of fluoridation is ethically corrupted both scientifically, administratively and politically.

In Qld we've recently had a politician convicted taking kick backs from industry. I'm sure there are more out there (including public servants) getting kick backs from and including fluoride polluting industries.

So you can see why anyone with an open mind is against involuntary public mass medication.

*In case I've missed something, what are your ethical concerns?*




Billyb said:


> Show me a (good) study that shows water fluoridation at concentrations used in Australia is causing bone disease, or cancer, or allegies, or whatever else people claim it causes. If someone can't prove things like that, then they shouldn't claim it to be true. Otherwise they are misleading people.




*Billy mate... the proof is from US data where they have been doing it longer than we have.*

Why do we have to wait for the proof to materialise in Australia, when the research I showed you from the US for dropping the rate to .7 mgl max, proves that fluoridation of concentrations regulated from .7mg/l to 1.2mg/l in the US, for longer than Aus has been fluoridating, are on balance detremental to dental health, the health budgets and community sentiment.

Some Aus states fluoridate over 1.2 mg/l... Queensland is allowing up to 1.5 mg/l with it's roll out of fluoridation... but I guess we may have more fluoride waste from industry to get rid of!


----------



## Billyb (24 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Again, another understatement is better than a denial.
> Why do we have to wait for the proof to materialise in Australia, when the research I showed you from the US for dropping the rate to .7 mgl max, proves that fluoridation of concentrations regulated from .7mg/l to 1.2mg/l in the US, for longer than Aus has been fluoridating, are on balance detremental to dental health, the health budgets and community sentiment.




You haven't provided one credible piece of evidence to show fluoridation (at the concentrations done in Australia) cause side effects such as bone disease or cancer. 

All your USA article says is that in the opinion of the HHS, the optimal concentration of fluoride (to minimise fluorosis) is about 0.7-1.2ppm. Fair 'nough. They still say fluoridated water is a good thing, at the correct concentration, which we all knew already anyway.

If you want to argue that water fluoridation is ethically wrong because of autonomy reasons, then that's fair enough and I accept that as your (fair) opinion. But when you are arguing about the science (health effects) of water fluoridation without any evidence to support your claims, that's just misleading people.


----------



## medicowallet (24 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> If you want to argue that water fluoridation is ethically wrong because of autonomy reasons, then that's fair enough and I accept that as your (fair) opinion. But when you are arguing about the science (health effects) of water fluoridation without any evidence to support your claims, that's just misleading people.




Awaiting links from

www.fluoridekills.com
www.governmentmindcontrol.org
www.fairiesatemyhomework.com


----------



## Whiskers (25 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> You haven't provided one credible piece of evidence to show fluoridation (at the concentrations done in Australia)




You mean odd doses about 31 mg/l as happened in Bris and numerous places in the US where they decided to terminate fluoridation because of undisclosed overdosing.



> ...cause side effects such as bone disease or cancer.




The point here is from about 1986 in the US it was presumed that 100% of fluoride ingestion came from water supplies (fluoridation). This 2010 report starts to break down some of the vested interest research and reporting parameters that has historically skewed reported results.

But given the unethical history of the introduction of fluoridation and the repeated nondisclosure of overdosing, bone disease from fluoridation will become more prevalent with further research especially (as mentioned earlier) since the American Dental Association (ADA) has been demoted (just this year) from it's previously powerful position in the US health system, and not able to direct research and findings anywhere to the extent it has in the past.



> All your USA article says is that in the opinion of the HHS, the optimal concentration of fluoride (to minimise fluorosis) is about 0.7-1.2ppm. Fair 'nough. They still say fluoridated water is a good thing, *at the correct concentration*, which we all knew already anyway.




Yes, the correct concentration... for who? Children under two, nil. 

Where concentrations routinely exceed 2 mg/l the US EPA advises children under under 9 yo not to routinely drink fluoridated water. 

Then there is the race/gene factor. US research (or at least the EPA) recognises research that shows black Americans have about twice the tendency to absorb fluoride, resulting in double the incidence of fluorosis. 

But, while the ADA had a significant control over research and how it was reported in mainstream US, there was never any mention of that in final reports to authorities.

So, in summary... as the biased influences on how data is collected and reported is stripped away, the evidence of more bone, organ and other damage will obviously increase.


----------



## Billyb (25 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> You mean odd doses about 31 mg/l as happened in Bris and numerous places in the US where they decided to terminate fluoridation because of undisclosed overdosing.




Clearly there is an element of trust involved in any policy where any service is provided.

You trust that your electrician created the circuits in your house so they are safe for you and your children, you trust that the roads the government builds are safe, you trust that government flood maps are accurate when they say the house you are about to purchase wont ever be flooded, . [/Clearly/] this is all a part of life, there is always a risk with anything and isolating a possible error to just water fluoridation is pulling at straws
By the way, 31mg/L for a very short period of time will NOT cause long-term side effects. You need it over long periods of time, so again your argument is clutching at straws. There are procedures in place to ensure the dosing in QLD is correct. If you believe they are overdosing long-term without letting the public know, then that is just conspiracy until proven correct.  




Whiskers said:


> But given the unethical history of the introduction of fluoridation and the repeated nondisclosure of overdosing, bone disease from fluoridation will become more prevalent with further research especially (as mentioned earlier) since the American Dental Association (ADA) has been demoted (just this year) from it's previously powerful position in the US health system, and not able to direct research and findings anywhere to the extent it has in the past.
> 
> So, in summary... as the biased influences on how data is collected and reported is stripped away, the evidence of more bone, organ and other damage will obviously increase.




Sorry, but I can find plenty of evidence from non American Dental Association sources to support the safety of fluoridation (some i posted already). Are you going to tell me the ADA has control over all these organisations too?? Do you seriously believe no one out there has been fair with their scientific methods in coming up with the results they have? If that is your belief, then clearly nothing will convince you.


----------



## Whiskers (25 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> Clearly there is an element of trust involved in any policy where any service is provided.
> 
> You trust that your electrician created the circuits in your house so they are safe for you and your children, you trust that the roads the government builds are safe, you trust that government flood maps are accurate when they say the house you are about to purchase wont ever be flooded, . [/Clearly/] this is all a part of life, there is always a risk with anything and isolating a possible error to just water fluoridation is pulling at straws




Electricians and Civil Engineers (road builders) are high on the trust barometer.

I would put government declarations about flooding and fluoridation in the same low basket because there are so many variables affecting individuals that they cannot possible control.

Electrical and civil engineering work is substantially 'static' once it has been installed, whereas flood prediction and fluoride intake is always 'fluid', dependant on so many variables.



> By the way, 31mg/L for a very short period of time will NOT cause long-term side effects. You need it over long periods of time, so again your argument is clutching at straws. *There are procedures in place to ensure the dosing in QLD is correct*. If you believe they are overdosing long-term without letting the public know, then that is just conspiracy until proven correct.




As we have already seen, they only revealed the overdose after a lot of people became ill and then they did not penalise the fluoridation operators.

*So, what are the procedures to ensure the dosing is correct* and we are notified of any overdosing?



> Sorry, but I can find plenty of evidence from non American Dental Association sources to support the safety of fluoridation (some i posted already). Are you going to tell me the ADA has control over all these organisations too?? *Do you seriously believe no one out there has been fair with their scientific methods in coming up with the results they have?* If that is your belief, then clearly nothing will convince you.




Oh yes I believe there is 'fair' science out there.

But I have been focusing on science that has been presented to (and largely ignored) by the main stream US health and policy making authorities to avoid your perpetual conspiracy theory line.

BUT, until a couple of months ago, the corrupted and biased American Dental Association had been in a position since the advent of fluoridation mid 1900's to substantially influence 'official' policy and science about fluoridation. Even the WHO drew it's data and recommendations from the US tainted data.

You just have to look at the race/gene factor for fluorosis (double) for black americans and the unacceptably high risk of damage to children that the US EPA sees fit to advise children under nine not to consistently drink fluoridated water that is over 2mg/l... and children under two NOT to drink fluoridated water at all. 

Expect much more damning 'official' research to come in the future now the ADA is gone as a domineering power in US Public Health System.


----------



## Billyb (25 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> So, what are the procedures to ensure the dosing is correct and we are notified of any overdosing?




You *really*need to read the legislation if you feel so strongly about this.

I just quickly read over it then and found that:

1. Water suppliers need to do daily checks, clearly it is not possible to be overdosed (long term) when the concentrations are being checked daily. Unless they are being deliberately dodgy, and only a paranoid or conspiracy theorist would think that. But like many things in life, there is always an element of trust required. When you go a public hospital and get surgery done, an element of trust in the government and doctor is also required, this is no different. 

2. The concentrations of fluoride prescribed are 0.6mg - 0.8mg/L (+/-0.1mgL) WITHIN THE LIMITS YOU SAID YOURSELF IS OPTIMAL for dental caries prevention/reducing risk of fluorosis. 1.5mg/L is the limit in a different legislation as being the 'maximum safe dose' but the enforcable limit is 0.8+0.1mg/L = 0.9mg/L.
SO I dunno what you have been going on about this whole time, the concentration prescribed in QLD is exactly what you said yourself is optimal to reduce the risk of fluorosis.


----------



## Billyb (25 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> As we have already seen, they only revealed the overdose after a lot of people became ill and then they did not penalise the fluoridation operators.




The water fluoride concentrations are public information, that's why the newspapers are always reporting all the underdosing that was going on when the system was still ironing out the creases. You will know about any overdosing but if you think we have a corrupt QLD government and they wont tell us, then you are better off changing states then worrying about water fluoridation.


----------



## Whiskers (25 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> You *really*need to read the legislation if you feel so strongly about this.




I have, I nearly know it by heart now.



> I just quickly read over it then and found that:
> 
> 2. The concentrations of fluoride prescribed are 0.6mg - 0.8mg/L (+/-0.1mgL) WITHIN THE LIMITS YOU SAID YOURSELF IS OPTIMAL for dental caries prevention/reducing risk of fluorosis. 1.5mg/L is the limit in a different legislation as being the 'maximum safe dose' but the enforcable limit is 0.8+0.1mg/L = 0.9mg/L.
> SO I dunno what you have been going on about this whole time, the concentration prescribed in QLD is exactly what you said yourself is optimal to reduce the risk of fluorosis.




Gees mate, if you are a dentist and the dental research is as good as your research and referencing then pity help us. 

There is no 0.6mg - 0.8mg/L or (+/-0.1mgL).

For most of the Qld population especially where the previous over exposure was, Pine Rivers, (Schedule 2 Part 3) now part of Moreton Bay Regional Council (post amalgamation) the prescribed (minimum) rate is .8 mg/l. The regulation says; 

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]_*6 Fluoride concentration””Act, s 12(b)*_[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]_(1) For the Act, section 12(b), a public potable water supplier for a public potable water supply that adds fluoride to the water supply must maintain the prescribed fluoride concentration, for the water supply, mentioned in subsection (2). _[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]_(2) The prescribed fluoride concentration for the water supply is- _[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]_(a) if the water supply is located in the local government area of a local government listed in schedule 2, part 1””0.6mg/L; or _[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]_(b) if the water supply is located in the local government area of a local government listed in schedule 2, part 2””0.7mg/L; or_[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]_(c) if the water supply is located in the local government area of a local government listed in schedule 2, part 3””0.8mg/L._[/FONT]​[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]_(3) The public potable water supplier complies with subsection (1) if the measured fluoride concentration for the water supply for each day averaged over a quarter is within 0.1mg/L of the prescribed fluoride concentration for the water supply._[/FONT]​_http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/W/WatrFluorR08.pdf_​So, in simple language the minimum fluoridation daily rate average over a quarter must be maintained within .1mg of .8mg/l , ie the average must be higher than .7 mg/l for the quarter.

So if the fluoride injector broke down for a few days or the operator made a mistake and under fluoridated for a few days, they can pump it up to 1.5mg/l for as long as it takes to get their average for the quarter up to .8mg/l.


----------



## medicowallet (25 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> So if the fluoride injector broke down for a few days or the operator made a mistake and under fluoridated for a few days, they can pump it up to 1.5mg/l for as long as it takes to get their average for the quarter up to .8mg/l.




lmao

What a drama queen

why not say that one day a quarter they run it at 72mg/L


----------



## Julia (25 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> When you go a public hospital and get surgery done, an element of trust in the government and doctor is also required,



Hence why so many people maintain their private health cover, i.e. because they are totally unable to put their trust in the public health system.
So your comparison is hardly a recommendation imo.


----------



## Whiskers (25 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> The water fluoride concentrations are public information, that's why the newspapers are always reporting all the underdosing that was going on when the system was still ironing out the creases. You will know about any overdosing but if you think we have a corrupt QLD government and they wont tell us, then you are better off changing states then worrying about water fluoridation.




Under section:
*11 Reporting requirements*​
(1) A public potable water supplier for a public potable water ​supply that adds fluoride to the water supply must prepare a ​report for each quarter stating—​....

(3) *The report must be given to the chief executive within *​ 
*30 **business days after the end of each quarter.*​ ​So assuming the chief executive decides to make it public it could be four months old.

I may have missed something, but you show me where the chief executive is compelled to make the records public.


----------



## Whiskers (25 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> lmao
> 
> What a drama queen
> 
> why not say that one day a quarter they run it at 72mg/L





Good to see you're still paying attention mate.

What I described is the law. That is exactly what they can do under the law.

So strictly legally under sub section;

_(b) the amount of fluoride it has added, including an amount_
_of zero; and_
​it could, pump in multiple days up to 1.5 mg/l/day but I suspect that turning a blind eye to one day at 72mg/l would be stretching their luck a bit even for hard nosed Qld bureaucrats.


----------



## medicowallet (25 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Hence why so many people maintain their private health cover, i.e. because they are totally unable to put their trust in the public health system.
> So your comparison is hardly a recommendation imo.




Considering often the doctor is the same, it kind of reflects people who filter their water of fluoride doesn't it?


----------



## medicowallet (25 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Good to see you're still paying attention mate.
> 
> What I described is the law. That is exactly what they can do under the law.
> 
> ...




And I am actually worried too.

Worried that you actually think things like this are a possibility.

Roll on conspiracy theorist.

Oh, better be careful, the internet makes you a slave to the government.


----------



## Billyb (26 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> I have, I nearly know it by heart now.
> So if the fluoride injector broke down for a few days or the operator made a mistake and under fluoridated for a few days, they can pump it up to 1.5mg/l for as long as it takes to get their average for the quarter up to .8mg/l.



You are arguing for the sake of arguing. For fluoride to have any negative effect it needs to be above ideal concentration for long periods of time. *0.8mg/L averaged over one quarter is safe safe safe* and you are just being paranoid buddy.  If you don't like it you need to work out your own way of getting unfluoridated water, in the meantime the other 99.9% of us will take advantage of the health benefits it provides



Whiskers said:


> Under section:I may have missed something, but you show me where the chief executive is compelled to make the records public



Please look into the freedom of information Act. Why do you think the underdosing accidents that have occurred has been publicly available?

*I ask you for about the 5th time – can you find any evidence to support your claim that water fluoridation (at QLD concentrations) causes diseases such as bone disease or cancer? I presume that after this many requests that I’ve made, you obviously can’t find any.*

You also misinterpreted the legislation, section 6.3 means that the maximum average concentration over a quarter is 0.8mg/L +0.1mg/L = 0.9mg/L. Water suppliers who exceed this over one quarter are in breach of the legislation. If you still debate this, then please refer to section 4A(c) and this should convince you IT IS (in laymans's terms) 0.8mg/L +/- 0.1mg/L. 



Julia said:


> Hence why so many people maintain their private health cover, i.e. because they are totally unable to put their trust in the public health system.
> So your comparison is hardly a recommendation imo.



Yes well many people have no choice but to deal with public care, you should know that if you work in welfare.


----------



## Whiskers (26 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> You are arguing for the sake of arguing. For fluoride to have any negative effect it needs to be above ideal concentration for long periods of time. *0.8mg/L averaged over one quarter is safe safe safe* and you are just being paranoid buddy. If you don't like it you need to work out your own way of getting unfluoridated water, in the meantime the other 99.9% of us will take advantage of the health benefits it provides




*I demonstrate again that you are* *WRONG* about your interpretation of current Law and science. Read below.




> Please look into the freedom of information Act. Why do you think the *underdosing* accidents that have occurred has been publicly available?




What underdosing accidents? Certainly not by FOI!

The recent Pine Rivers overdosing was forced out in the open I understand by a lot of people reporting sick for no apparent reason.




If you read the official report into the overdosing accident by "LinkWater" you will see;
there was poor record keeping kept as perscribed under the legistlation,
the overdose occurred shortly before midnight on the 27th up to 12.35am on the 29th April 2009,
the water authority took a water sample on the 29th and the result was recieved on the 12th May.
Qld health was advised of the overdose on the 13th May.
http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/ehu/fluoride_investigate.pdf​So, how I or anyone else could have got the overdose information via FOI when the authorities didn't even know they had overdosed the community untill two weeks after the event is beyound me.




> *I ask you for about the 5th time – can you find any evidence to support your claim that water fluoridation (at QLD concentrations) causes diseases such as bone disease or cancer? I presume that after this many requests that I’ve made, you obviously can’t find any.*




*Excuse me for shouting, but you need to get this!* 

*Just have a bit of a think about how badly you are interpreting the Law and the facts about the accident report for a clue about your objectivity.* 



> *You also misinterpreted the legislation*, section 6.3 means that the maximum average concentration over a quarter is 0.8mg/L +0.1mg/L = 0.9mg/L. Water suppliers who exceed this over one quarter are in breach of the legislation. If you still debate this, then please refer to* section 4A(c)* and this should convince you IT IS (in laymans's terms) 0.8mg/L +/- 0.1mg/L.




*Wrong!* 

*Section "4A" relates to "Naturally occurring fluoride concentration— Act, s 8(1)(a)", nothing to do with the 'accident' or the majority of the Qld population.*

*Section 6 as quoted above, relates to "that adds fluoride to the water **supply" ie fluoridation.*​


----------



## Billyb (26 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> What underdosing accidents? Certainly not by FOI!



You do realise there have been underdosing incidents as well right?? Many, in fact, and the reason we know about them is because the information was made public by the government. 
I’m sure you will find some conspiracy argument against this, but that’s why freedom of information laws exists buddy. 

Conspiracy theorists have a habit of twisting the meanings of things around to suit their argument. This is exactly what you are doing this with the legislation. I interpret the legislation as meaning it can legally be between 0.7mg/L and 0.9mg/L. Get a lawyer and they will tell you the same thing buddy, I am sure of it. But then again, being a conspiracy theorist you might not trust the lawyer either hey…


----------



## Billyb (26 March 2011)

I will summarise my position here (for other readers) because arguing with a conspiracy theorist is pointless, as I have just learned, and I *do not want other people to be swayed by the incorrect information he keeps posting here.*

1. Whiskers is of the belief that water fluoridation in QLD will cause bone disease and cancer (and other diseases) in Queenslanders.
2. We have repeatedly asked Whiskers to provide some sort of evidence to support this claim – he still can’t find any. In contrast, I have provided lots of high-quality evidence to show that water fluoridation in QLD is SAFE.
3. He claims that any evidence that supports water fluoridation has been manipulated by dental organizations and governments (conspiracy).
4. In summary, Whiskers really doesn’t have a case until he provides some evidence to support his claims.


----------



## DB008 (26 March 2011)

To Medicowallet and Billyb,

Please go to page 18 of this thread and watch the videos in post number #350. I have posted a video called "FIRE WATER: Australia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace" (which is broken up into 9 parts)

There are Professors, Doctors, people who have Masters degrees and so forth in human anatomy that appear in this video. Are they all "brain washed" or "conspiracy theorists" or "crackpots"? I guess you can only try to show people so much and they must decide for themselves. 
Look, if you want to drink a industrial waste product (Incitec Pivot - Geelong plant, fertilizer waste product) that is "beneficial for your teeth", go for it. I don't and l don't have that choice without spending something in the order of around $1000. If countries like Norway, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, France, Austria, Netherlands, Japan *DO NOT* fluoridate their water and have the same rates of tooth decay, can you please explain to me what the benefit of drinking fluoridated water is??

_*Medicowallet and Billyb, can you please show me evidence that Fluoridated water has actually helped prevent tooth decay?? It's time for YOU to provide ME with evidence!*_


----------



## Billyb (26 March 2011)

DB008 said:


> To Medicowallet and Billyb,
> Medicowallet and Billyb, can you please show me evidence that Fluoridated water has actually helped prevent tooth decay?? It's time for YOU to provide ME with evidence![/U][/B][/I]



Certainly, I have provided many links earlier. Even whiskers himself has produced this link (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html) which supports the evidence that says water fluoridation reduces dental caries.
Dannyboy, there is absolutely no doubt, based on the literature, that water fluoridation is effective at reducing dental caries.  The graph you have posted is misleading, caries rates will always differ between countries due to so many variables that differ between the countries**, you have to look at results from studies completed within a single country to form any accurate conclusions.

**For example, Dehydration is a major reason for dental decay. Clearly, more people are dehydrated in Australia than in the European countries due to the much hotter climate here.


----------



## Billyb (26 March 2011)

There will always be a few doctors and professionals against fluoridation just like there will always be a few doctors out there who believe high salt intake has no effect on blood pressure. 

Don't be swayed by them - be intelligent - *look at all of the literature and form your own opinion.* Do not be overly swayed by individual people (no matter what their qualifications) or any videos.

I will go with  _whatever the research and literature says_. I am not biased! I do not give a damn what the government or ADA or some youtube video tells me, I only care at what the research has found out over the years. If the literature and research done over the years says water fluoridation is unsafe, then I will believe that!! However, in reality, the research is saying the opposite - that it is safe!! So I will stick with that until proven otherwise by better research.


----------



## medicowallet (26 March 2011)

DB008 said:


> To Medicowallet and Billyb,
> 
> Please go to page 18 of this thread and watch the videos in post number #350. I have posted a video called "FIRE WATER: Australia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace" (which is broken up into 9 parts)
> 
> ...




I have already addressed the flawed graph.

And the "documentary" written by a 25 year old boy who has no qualifications in the field.

I also know many professionals (professors in anatomy and dentistry) who love their fluoridated water and brush at least 3 times daily.  Guess they are just crackpots eh? Either that or they actually look at the evidence in their field.

I have also posted peer reviewed journals showing tooth decay prevention effects, and also links to the WHO fluoride statement showing tooth decay presentation. 

Where are your published conspiracy theory results?


----------



## DB008 (27 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> I have already addressed the flawed graph.
> 
> And the "documentary" written by a 25 year old boy who has no qualifications in the field.
> 
> ...





 ....



> When the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) nominated water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century, it published a graph (see Figure 1), which showed the reduction of cavities in US children coupled with the increase in water systems that have been fluoridated since the 1960's. The CDC referred to the graph with the statement:



figure 1





    "as a result [of water fluoridation], dental caries declined precipitously during the second half of the 20th century."

*However, what the CDC failed to mention is that similar declines in tooth decay have occurred in virtually every western country, most of which do not fluoridate water (see Figure 2).*


1) CDC....What....You have access to better data,references, graphs, than the CDC...LOL 



2) Doesn't matter who did [came up with the idea for] the doco. It's the _'references'_ in the doco that matter. So a 12 year old is smarter than someone with a Doctorate/Masters etc etc..LOL. Can you really see someone with a Doctorate/Masters really putting their reputation on the line for BS? No, l can't either... Would you really study for 3-5 YEARS then do ANOTHER 3-5 years and put it all down the drain? Honestly, would you? No, l thought not. So, why would they? And how many people put their reputation on the line in that video, l would say no fewer than 5 people with doctorates/Masters/PH D's. More than you and BillyB.

Lets see, "Please drink my waste product from a fertilizer plant, it'll strengthen the enamel/prevent decayed/missing teeth"...LOL....or....."we'll buy it [Fluoride] from Belgium where they don't Fluoridate their water. 

PLEASE, stop this childish behavior and wake up.....


----------



## Billyb (27 March 2011)

DB008 said:


> ....
> PLEASE, stop this childish behavior and wake up.....




I said it before and I'll say it again. Intelligent, non-biased people will not rely on one source or one summarised graph to tell them the facts, they will go out and have a read of a large sample of the available research and make up their own mind.

If you do this and you do it properly with an open mind, you may be surprised.


----------



## DB008 (27 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> I said it before and I'll say it again. Intelligent, non-biased people will not rely on one source or one summarised graph to tell them the facts, they will go out and have a read of a large sample of the available research and make up their own mind.
> 
> If you do this and you do it properly with an open mind, you may be surprised.




Is that why in the USA they are *DECREASING *the amount of *FLUORIDE *they add to the water then? l'm just trying to put 2 and 2 together mate.


----------



## DB008 (27 March 2011)

> There used to be a time when *Professor Paul Connett* preferred to just *teach environmental chemistry and toxicology at St Lawrence University in New York* and never paid any heed to the hot fluoride debate going on.
> 
> But it had to change one day when his wife gave him some research papers along with a cup of tea. After reading those papers, he realized the gravity of the issue. He was shocked to know that how incredibly low fluoride is in mother’s milk as if it was necessary for children’s teeth then it should have been there in mother’s milk which is as low as 0.004 parts per million.
> 
> ...




Then again, he's probably wrong on that front too and so am l......


----------



## medicowallet (27 March 2011)

DB008 said:


> ....
> 
> 
> figure 1
> ...




1. Where are the underprivilaged countries on that graph?  Where is the differentiation between the less well to do areas versus affluent areas, or less educated vs highly educated.. I am sorry, but a graph like that means little without an explanation of the methodology.

2. Anything to get your name out there, good or bad, especially if you are mediocre.


----------



## Billyb (27 March 2011)

DB008 said:


> Is that why in the USA they are *DECREASING *the amount of *FLUORIDE *they add to the water then? l'm just trying to put 2 and 2 together mate.




If they are decreasing fluoride (note: not removing it, just reducing the concentration), then they are doing so because the latest evidence suggests optimal concentration to reduce the risk of fluorosis is about 0.7-1.0mg/L. Note they are NOT doing it because of any risk of medical diseases such as cancer or bone disease since there is no evidence of this risk.



DB008 said:


> Then again, he's probably wrong on that front too and so am l......




There will always be a few (maybe 1%) professionals against water fluoridation. Easy to forget that there are 99% of professionals out there who support it isn't it? Not to mention those in the 1% minority can release controversial books, videos etc that can make them big money.



medicowallet said:


> 1. Where are the underprivilaged countries on that graph?  Where is the differentiation between the less well to do areas versus affluent areas, or less educated vs highly educated.. I am sorry, but a graph like that means little without an explanation of the methodology.




Agree it's a very misleading graph. To give Australia as an example, it differs a lot from other countries --> eg high numbers of low socioeconomic (aboriginal) communities, hot climate, poorly funded, highly dispersed public dental system and unaffordable private dental system, shortage of dentists in non-metropolitan areas, dietary differences, different oral health promotion programs and attitudes toward oral health etc etc.


----------



## Billyb (27 March 2011)

Just had a read through the beginnings of this thread. I feel I have posted here enough over the past 4 pages, but because I am a Dentist I feel it is my duty to at least do my best to ensure other readers here don’t read the incorrect information posted by the anti-fluoridist conspiracy theorists and believe it. Here is my summary for those readers who want to know the real facts:


Clearly, Australian governments would not fluoridate water unless there was evidence to support it's effectiveness and safety.


In Science, evidence is only credible if it is peer-reviewed.  Peer-reviewed means high quality, reliable, unbiased, credible evidence found in scientific journals. In fact, peer-reviewed evidence is so important that researchers will dismiss any reference as unreliable unless it is peer-reviewed . _So don't accept the references that anti-fluoridists keep providing here unless it is at least peer-reviewed_. Unsurprisingly, none of them have been able to provide any peer-reviewed articles, *instead they usually provide links to news articles, summarized graphs, youtube videos,  biased websites, comments from anti-fluorodist doctors etc. But always remember, this is all anecdotal, biased, low quality evidence that cannot be relied on.*


Because there is no peer-reviewed evidence to support their claims, the anti-fluoridists will work around that in many ways. Eg Whiskers keeps using bold and colored text to entice people to his posts, he posts low-quality (non-peer reviewed) references, and discounts any real evidence posted by others by claiming that ‘the evidence has been manipulated by governments and dental organizations (conspiracy)’. Don't be tricked into this - please look at the peer-reviewed evidence and make your own mind up.


 Because they can't find any actual evidence to back their claims, Anti-fluoridists in this thread will mention gross generalisations to mislead you. For example: They will say 'fluoride is a poison'. In actual fact, even oxygen is a poison at high concentrations. Fluoride is not a poison at the concentrations available in our water supplies, just like oxygen is not poison at the concentrations available in our air. Again, don't be tricked - read the peer-reviewed evidence and make up your own mind.


There is LOTS of peer-reviewed evidence to show that water fluoridation is EFFECTIVE at reducing dental decay in the population, as well as lots of peer-reviewed evidence to show that it is SAFE. Here are just a few that I found earlier.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20873281
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20415937
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20406153
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20156234
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20088224
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19627654
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19169572
Note: The above are abstracts of peer reviewed (i.e reliable) evidence. Ask the anti-fluoridists to give you peer-reviewed evidence- unsurprisingly they can’t find any.


----------



## Judd (27 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> Just had a read through the beginnings of this thread. I feel I have posted here enough over the past 4 pages, but because I am a Dentist I feel it is my duty to at least do my best to ensure other readers here don’t read the incorrect information posted by the anti-fluoridist conspiracy theorists and believe it.




Yes, it is difficult.  Same type of hyped up claims about mercury in amalgam fillings - causes brain damage, Alzheimers, and all manner of things.  Total rubbish unless you are inclined to scull a few grams of mercury each and every day.  No I am not a health professional in any way shape or form - I simply associate with well educated people and listen to them but do not pretend that I have any of their skills or understanding.

The Dunning-Kruger effect reigns supreme, Billyb.


----------



## DB008 (27 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> In actual fact, even oxygen is a poison at high concentrations.




O2 outside of 19.5% or 23.5% is dangerous. "WE" all breathe O2 @ 20.9%  in "normal atmosphere". However, please continue with your passage that l should be drinking water with "untreated waste fluoride" from a "Fertilizer Plant", maybe one day when l'm 100 with no teeth l'll thank you...IMAO!


----------



## DB008 (27 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> If they are decreasing fluoride (note: not removing it, just reducing the concentration), then they are doing so because the latest evidence suggests optimal concentration to reduce the risk of fluorosis is about 0.7-1.0mg/L. Note they are NOT doing it because of any risk of medical diseases such as cancer or bone disease since there is no evidence of this risk.




Litigation and Liability


----------



## Julia (27 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> I feel I have posted here enough over the past 4 pages, but because I am a Dentist I feel it is my duty.....



Um, why do you have to describe your occupation with a Capital D?
Wouldn't you find it odd if we talked about Politicians, with a capital P, or Garbage Collectors with initial caps?
I'm sure we are very impressed by the fact that you are a Professional (with very much a capital P) so that you really don't have to reinforce this with the Capital D.



> Clearly, Australian governments would not fluoridate water unless there was evidence to support it's effectiveness and safety.





Nonsense.  If you really believe this, then ipso facto you are also believing that all governments in Australia only make wise decisions, based on good evidence.

The facts, especially in the course of the last couple of years, are very much indicating the contrary.

To suggest that governments always act in the best interests of the people is just a joke.


----------



## medicowallet (27 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Um, why do you have to describe your occupation with a Capital D?
> Wouldn't you find it odd if we talked about Politicians, with a capital P, or Garbage Collectors with initial caps?
> I'm sure we are very impressed by the fact that you are a Professional (with very much a capital P) so that you really don't have to reinforce this with the Capital D.
> 
> ...




Wow Julia, why does a single capital worry you so, are you going off on a rant again?

Which facts are those you are referring to?

Or did you make that statement just to make us assume you have evidence?

Governments are held accountable, and this is a topic of interest for many people for and the few against. The few against would be jumping up and down like maniacs if they had any evidence against fluoridation (ie that the costs outweighed the benefits)

Please, show me that the costs outweigh the benefits. If you do I will happily advocate for the abolition of fluoride from water. Until then I will tow the line with the public health benefit. (btw I do believe that in the future cost will outweigh benefits, just there is no evidence of this atm)


----------



## Billyb (28 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Um, why do you have to describe your occupation with a Capital D?



I didn't realise I even did it. I apologise for my poor grammar if I'm wrong in using it. But perhaps you are reading into it a little much though, Julia.



Julia said:


> The facts, especially in the course of the last couple of years, are very much indicating the contrary.




Hmm, what facts?. Refer to my post #508. 'Facts' are not facts in a scientific debate until there is scientific research to prove it, otherwise it could just be hearsay/myth/conspiracy/opinion. 

For example, at the start of the thread, you were claiming that the discoloration in your teeth occurred because you spent 1 month in a town with fluoridated water. The scientific evidence clearly shows that this is not possible, therefore what you were saying is just opinion/hearsay (and incorrect), that discoloration must have occurred at a different time and probably a different cause. This highlights the importance of DYOR - specifically of good quality evidence, not crap stuff.


----------



## Spongle (28 March 2011)

TLR

My 2c:

That are much worst things that find thier way into our systems in this day and age. Paracetemol for example concerns me much much more. Or hows about the prescribing of antidepressant drugs by GP's? Or my personal fave, Giving children amphetamines for ADD... (now that stuff really does ruin your teeth).

I'm 29 and am already missing 2 teeth and am on my 3rd root canal as of the other day. If it wasn't for flouride in the water reckon i'd have spent $15000 on my teeth by now instead of $5000.

I wouldnt worry bout flouride... all the lead in those old pipes cancels it out


----------



## Whiskers (28 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> There will always be a few doctors and professionals against fluoridation just like there will always be a few doctors out there who believe high salt intake has no effect on blood pressure.
> 
> Don't be swayed by them - be intelligent - *look at all of the literature and form your own opinion. Do not be overly swayed by individual people (no matter what their qualifications)* or any videos.




Good advice, especially anyone who includes "Conspiracy Theorists" in just about every attempted rebuttal of the concerns of historically corrupted science and public health policy eminating from the USA.



> I will go with _whatever the research and literature says_. I am not biased!




Huh 

... but as demonstrated earlier, you just have a lot of trouble interpreting data, reports and the Law. 




medicowallet said:


> 1. Where are the underprivilaged countries on that graph? Where is the differentiation between the less well to do areas versus affluent areas, or less educated vs highly educated.. I am sorry, but a graph like that means little without an explanation of the methodology.




*Yes, the methodology!*

It's interesting that most US reports (esp. by dentists) use the 'Dean' standard of measure for carries created back in the mid 1900's. Dean didn't count fluorosis victims unless they had 2 or more teeth affected by fluorosis. 

Not to mention, because of the previously powerful position of the corrupted American Dental Association in the US Public Health System, the official reports didn't accept that fluorosis from fluoridation was a health issue, it was only cosmedic... and then of no significance. 

Gee that's a sure fire way to shortern the list of fluorosis victims and scuttle any research consideration of other health issues! 

I'll provide the link after one of these dudes put their foot in it again.  Their bias has probably repelled them from even looking at such official records.



Billyb said:


> If they are decreasing fluoride (note: not removing it, just reducing the concentration), then they are doing so because the latest evidence suggests optimal concentration to reduce the risk of fluorosis is about 0.7-1.0mg/L. Note they are NOT doing it because of any risk of medical diseases such as cancer or bone disease since there is no evidence of this risk.




The latest evidence is clearly saying that fluoridation is distrubiting Fluoride unevenly right through the food chain with an increasing multiplier effect especially on the young and more cumulative effect on the ageing. The US is recommending to lower fluoridation rates to the lower of the range, .7mg/l.

Also, this report was done late 2010 before the (US) ADA influence arm was demoted. 

So watch out for much better reports of other adverse health findings in the future, because while gov was duped, bribed and corrupted into fluoridation in the early days as a cheap dental health measure, they are now starting to see the public fury from being told fluorosis was not a health issue and of no significance anyway. The people who were born as fluoridation was at it's peak in the US are ageing and starting to cost the health system a lot of money from a range of poor quality and toxic food inputs, including fluoridation. 

There is research out there, previously 'gagged' or branded unfounded or Conspiracy Theoriest by the proponents of fluoridation, that the politicians are starting to take notice of because in the case of fluoridation, they were led to believe fluoridation was an efficient way to treat dental caries.

BUT the reports only say fluoridation is an eficent way to distribute fluoride to the masses... cheap and nasty mass medication. They do NOT say fluoridation is an efficient (holistic) economic health measure.



> Agree it's a very misleading graph. To give Australia as an example, it differs a lot from other countries --> eg high numbers of low socioeconomic *(aboriginal)* communities, hot climate, poorly funded, highly dispersed public dental system and unaffordable private dental system, shortage of dentists in non-metropolitan areas, dietary differences, different oral health promotion programs and attitudes toward oral health etc etc.




As I pointed out previously, the US has officially recognised reports, although not mainstream yet, because of the corrupted influence of the US ADA, that *black Americans are twice as susceptable to fluorosis, at least*. We know race/genes have a huge effect on other mineral uptake and disease rates, BUT...

* ...where is the Australian research to prove Aboriginal Australians are not twice as susceptable like black Americans?*

Without that research, Australian data also distort the true figures even more.


----------



## Whiskers (28 March 2011)

Judd said:


> Yes, it is difficult. Same type of hyped up claims about mercury in amalgam fillings - causes brain damage, Alzheimers, and all manner of things. *Total rubbish unless you are inclined to scull a few grams of mercury each and every day.* No I am not a health professional in any way shape or form - I simply associate with well educated people and listen to them but do not pretend that I have any of their skills or understanding.




Well, if that's your perception of the the danger of mercury poisioning, then certainly...



> The Dunning-Kruger effect reigns supreme, Billyb.



WITH YOU!



Spongle said:


> TLR
> 
> My 2c:
> 
> ...




Welcome to the discussion, Spongle.

Firstly, no amount of fluoride or fluoridation is going to totally eliminate tooth disease because there are just too many individual and enviornmental variables. 

Just think about it. In the US when fluoridation first started under the leadership of ex ALCOA employees infiltrating senior decision making positions in US public health, there was plenty of fluoridation at 4 mg/l to 8mg/l and higher where injection accidents occurred.

Logically, if tooth decay was ever going to be eliminated or substantially reduced, it would have been then and for ever after. BUT, the unbiased research is seriously concerned that while topical fluoride has some value in decay protection, ingested fluoride is probably counter productive because it degrades the tooth from the inside via the fluoride intoxicated blood supply, causing fluorosis which leads to decay anyway... not to mention a number of bone and organ diseases.



> I wouldnt worry bout flouride... all the lead in those old pipes cancels it out




In fact that should be more of a concern, because that corrusion loosens or exposes small particles of lead to the water supply and also causes more variation with individual fluoride doseage.


----------



## Spongle (28 March 2011)

Hmmm...

interesting

I have no sources to back up my claims... just me on my soap box really.

Re: high levels of flouride in the bloodstream leading; rather ironicly, to tooth decay, I would imagine those levels would need to be quite significant ie alot higher than is needed for general water flouridation (not too sure if thats a word haha) for the aim of preventing tooth problems.

That said that is purely an assumption on my part so I really can't say anything definitively


----------



## Julia (28 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> I didn't realise I even did it. I apologise for my poor grammar if I'm wrong in using it. But perhaps you are reading into it a little much though, Julia.



Not to do with grammar at all.  I was just a bit amused about the assumed greater 'importance' usually ascribed to a word given an initial capital.  But it was a silly, small thing, and I apologise for drawing attention to it.




> Hmm, what facts?. Refer to my post #508. 'Facts' are not facts in a scientific debate until there is scientific research to prove it, otherwise it could just be hearsay/myth/conspiracy/opinion.



This is a misinterpretation of what I said.  I wasn't referring to any 'facts' about fluoride.  I don't doubt that it has been shown to reduce dental decay.  My objection is on the basis of any government adding anything to the water supply which is not required for simply keeping that water clean, e.g. chlorine.  

I just hate governments extending their reach into what should be an area of personal choice, particularly as this is one where those who do want to use fluoride can do so easily on a personal basis.

When I said 'facts', I was rather referring to the great mass of decisions governments have made which have been total stuff-ups and a waste of our tax dollars.  Probably I should have better used a word like 'history' or been more specific about what I meant.

OK?


----------



## DB008 (28 March 2011)

Spongle said:


> I'm 29 and am already missing 2 teeth and am on my 3rd root canal as of the other day. If it wasn't for flouride in the water reckon i'd have spent $15000 on my teeth by now instead of $5000.




WTF????

That is statement is wrong and l would say it is more towards poor dental care than not having Fluoride in the water. Can the 2 dentists please speak up (I'm surprised you haven't!)


I was born and spend the first 5 years of my infancy in a European country where there was no Fluoride added to the water. I am similar age to you. I brush at least 2 times a day, sometimes more and visit a dentist every 6 months. I have not had 1 filling, missing teeth or root canal, EVER. I have had one crown/root canal from a tooth that was knocked out, but that has nothing to do with this topic whatsoever.


----------



## Billyb (28 March 2011)

Julia said:


> This is a misinterpretation of what I said.  I wasn't referring to any 'facts' about fluoride.  I don't doubt that it has been shown to reduce dental decay.  My objection is on the basis of any government adding anything to the water supply which is not required for simply keeping that water clean, e.g. chlorine.




Yes, I accidentally misinterpreted what you said. My bad.

I respect your above argument because I understand and appreciate the ethical argument of fluoride. You don't deliberately go on a spree and post false information (and claiming it to be fact) to sway people. You had a misunderstanding about the aetiology of fluorosis, but once someone told you the science behind it you accepted it instead of arguing for the sake of arguing. There is a valid argument that the addition of fluoride may be a violation of autonomy (although IMO the advantages far outweigh this small disadvantage) so the ethical argument is acceptable as far as I'm concerned. I can appreciate your argument, even though I don't fully agree with it.

Contrast the above quote with Whiskers. No matter how much scientific evidence is given to him, he just ignores it and posts rubbish (non-scientific) information to rebut it. I think he doesn't actually care about the facts, he just wants to win this pointless argument and maintain his narrow point of view. I don't post to argue with these sort of people, I post so that other people don't read his posts and get the wrong information.


----------



## Billyb (28 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> *Yes, the methodology!*
> 
> It's interesting that most US reports (esp. by dentists) use the 'Dean' standard of measure for carries created back in the mid 1900's. Dean didn't count fluorosis victims unless they had 2 or more teeth affected by fluorosis.




Fluorosis is a bilateral disease.
ie at least 2 teeth would be affected usually. Clearly any study looking into fluorosis would therefore look for at least 2 affected teeth.

T_his is more evidence for others to see that you don't know what you're talking about, but you are awfully good at pretending to know what you're talking about._ I can sniff it out like a dog because this is my area of expertise, other's cant but at least I can point it out to them.

I will not be surprised if somehow you debate this with me, even though what I'm saying is the latest knowledge that is taught to dental students at dental school and the latest knowledge which I have in my peadiatric dentistry textbook in front of me, and also matches my own personal clinical findings. 



Whiskers said:


> As I pointed out previously, the US has officially recognised reports, although not mainstream yet, because of the corrupted influence of the US ADA, that *black Americans are twice as susceptable to fluorosis, at least*. We know race/genes have a huge effect on other mineral uptake and disease rates, BUT...




What research mate? Show it to us. 



Whiskers said:


> The latest evidence is clearly saying that fluoridation is distrubiting Fluoride unevenly right through the food chain with an increasing multiplier effect especially on the young and more cumulative effect on the ageing. The US is recommending to lower fluoridation rates to the lower of the range, .7mg/l.




What evidence says this mate? Show it to us. 



Whiskers said:


> The people who were born as fluoridation was at it's peak in the US are ageing and starting to cost the health system a lot of money from a range of poor quality and toxic food inputs, including fluoridation.




What research said this? Show it to us.


----------



## Julia (28 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> I respect your above argument because I understand and appreciate the ethical argument of fluoride. You don't deliberately go on a spree and post false information (and claiming it to be fact) to sway people. You had a misunderstanding about the aetiology of fluorosis, but once someone told you the science behind it you accepted it instead of arguing for the sake of arguing.



Oh dear, I didn't want to get into any arguments on this thread and have simply apologised for my unnecessary picking up of a capital letter to denote superiority.

But at no stage have I conceded that I had any misunderstanding about fluorosis or anything else, and I would suggest that the diagnosis of a dentist who actually saw the condition and made the diagnosis will be preferable to an opinion from an anonymous person in an internet forum who was never able to have seen the condition of the then teeth.

And if my simple statement that I accept that fluoride will reduce dental caries is being interpreted as my 'acceptance of the science' (horrible association of climate change here!) then I will withdraw it.  I have simply said that I accept that by hardening the teeth, caries will likely be reduced, but this acceptance should not be interpreted as my agreement that any side effects, proven or suggested, are so insignificant as to therefore justify putting fluoride in the water system.


----------



## Billyb (28 March 2011)

Julia said:


> And if my simple statement that I accept that fluoride will reduce dental caries is being interpreted as my 'acceptance of the science' (horrible association of climate change here!) then I will withdraw it.  I have simply said that I accept that by hardening the teeth, caries will likely be reduced, but this acceptance should not be interpreted as my agreement that any side effects, proven or suggested, are so insignificant as to therefore justify putting fluoride in the water system.




That's fine. I have no problem with what you believe because you don't try so hard to change everyone else's mind about it by posting false/innacurate/misleading info.




Julia said:


> But at no stage have I conceded that I had any misunderstanding about fluorosis or anything else, and I would suggest that the diagnosis of a dentist who actually saw the condition and made the diagnosis will be preferable to an opinion from an anonymous person in an internet forum who was never able to have seen the condition of the then teeth.




You're free to believe what you believe and I don't blame you for trusting your dentist's diagnosis over an anonymous internet poster like me. I can't tell you what condition you have because I haven't seen your mouth. What I can tell you is that fluorosis develops while the teeth are developing (i.e when you are a child) so it's not possible to 'acquire it' late in life by simply visiting a fluoridated town for one month. 
Just letting you know, Julia...you're free to dismiss what I say if you wish (but you'd be dismissing a whole profession and body of evidence as well).


----------



## Julia (28 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> You're free to believe what you believe and I don't blame you for trusting your dentist's diagnosis over an anonymous internet poster like me. I can't tell you what condition you have because I haven't seen your mouth. What I can tell you is that fluorosis develops while the teeth are developing (i.e when you are a child) so it's not possible to 'acquire it' late in life by simply visiting a fluoridated town for one month.
> Just letting you know, Julia...you're free to dismiss what I say if you wish (but you'd be dismissing a whole profession and body of evidence as well).



OK, I appreciate your moderate and reasonable attitude.   I later realised that at the time I was consuming a very large quantity of the wonderful citrus fruit (grapefruit and tangelos) that were available there, and biting into segments, sucking out the juice from between the front teeth.  Perhaps the unusual amount of acidity could have etched into the tooth enamel?

I have no idea, but you may have an opinion?

Btw, the problem was dealt with via veneers but that was quite an expense for teeth that had previously been white and quite OK.


----------



## Whiskers (28 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> Fluorosis is a bilateral *disease*.




Why do you use the word "disease" when it is a 'condition' caused by fluoride, the hypomineralization (undermineralisation) of tooth enamel resulting in greater porosity of tooth enamel.

I suppose it's an effective tactic to misrepresent the true cause of fluorosis. 



> ie at least 2 teeth would be affected usually. Clearly any study looking into fluorosis would therefore look for at least 2 affected teeth.




So why do you think the Dean index is better and more reliable than the TSIF index which is accepted as a better index?




> > Originally Posted by *Whiskers*
> >
> >
> >
> ...




What, you don't know about this? 

I already have. It's in the links I provided you.




> What evidence says this mate? Show it to us.




Ditto



> What research said this? Show it to us.




Ditto... but I'll revisit shortly, after I deal with the 'severity' of fluorosis.

Billy, how would you rate the degree of this fluorosis?


----------



## Billyb (29 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Perhaps the unusual amount of acidity could have etched into the tooth enamel?




Possibly. Especially if the discoloration was isolated mainly to the interproximal (inbetween teeth and side of teeth) areas. There are a lot of potential factors at play and as you know without seeing your mouth I could only guess and I could be wrong. But never mind, at least you have nice veneers now instead ☺



Whiskers said:


> Why do you use the word "disease" when it is a 'condition' caused by fluoride



It really doesn't matter, some people call it a disease  (including WHO).



Whiskers said:


> :
> So why do you think the Dean index is better and more reliable than the TSIF index which is accepted as a better index?



 Not relevant Whiskers. That’s a question for the fluorosis researchers.  I don’t claim to be an expert at fluorosis indices, because its irrelevant to clinical practice. No one here understands it (or cares about it) either so it would be a waste of my time to talk about it. 


Whiskers said:


> Billy, how would you rate the degree of this fluorosis?



This is not a dentistry exam my friend, me answering that question wont help this debate. I will change your question to a more direct question which people here will find more useful:

_Was that condition in the photo caused by water fluoridation like in QLD?_


----------



## Whiskers (29 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> It really doesn't matter, some people call it a disease (including WHO).




Well, since you are dodging around the point and avoiding answering questions with semantics, it does matter to the question of the integrity of the case for fluoridation. 

WHO tends to take it's lead from the researchers... who predominately came from the USA and that corrupted AlCOA and ADA fluoridation research base.

Condition is more accurately attributed to an unhealthy state, such as 'a progressive condition'... getting better or worse, loosing weight, gaining weight etc. People tend to relate to something like a burn, broken leg or overdosing medication or swallowing poison as a condition. 

Disease is more characterised by illness with typical symptoms, associated with damage or infection to our body... like diabetes, osteoporosis, cholera etc. 

Isn't fluorosis (from fluoridation) a condition like overdosing medication or swallowing poison?

Please provide a better definition if you disagree with mine.



> > Originally Posted by *Whiskers*
> >
> >
> > So why do you think the Dean index is better and more reliable than the TSIF index which is accepted as a better index?
> ...




But you are loudly applauding some research over others! Don't you want to know that the foundation for their analysis is accurate and reliable?

*So, is it fair to say that you have no understanding of the research terms of reference and protocols, you just accept that advice from 'your' peers without really understanding it.*

Oh, you "don’t claim to be an expert at fluorosis indices"... but you keep regurgitating that there is no serious fluorosis in 'legal' fluoridation. 



> No one here understands it (or cares about it) either so it would be a waste of my time to talk about it.




*That's mighty ignorant of you, when the majority of posters are questioning the integrity of the science and your assertion that certain science is true and others that you disagree with are nothing but conspiracy theories.* 



> This is not a dentistry exam my friend, me answering that question wont help this debate. I will change your question to a more direct question which people here will find more useful:
> 
> _Was that condition in the photo caused by water fluoridation like in QLD? _




Oh yes, it is an examination of your assessment of varies degrees of fluorosis.

The photo is a simple picture to gauge your index of the severity of fluorosis. 

You, or your profession does have pictorial illustrations of the various degree of fluorosis don't you... or is it still standard practice to dismiss all fluorosis as 'minor cosmetic and not a health condition' as was the official line by pro fluoridation dentistry until more recently?

Ok, you provide your own pictures of minor, mild and severe fluorosis so we can see if we are all on the same page. 

As you know, Qld is still rolling out fluoridation, started a couple of years ago and another year to go to complete. But what people are looking to is *the historical research from overseas that shows what can and will happen here in time,* at the .8 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l legislated fluoridation rate here in Qld.

Bty, I will come back to those other issues once we clarify your semantics about fluorosis.


----------



## Billyb (30 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Please provide a better definition if you disagree with mine.




I don't disagree with you. I don't mind if you call it condition or disease, I wont argue with either. It's not important.



Whiskers said:


> But you are loudly applauding some research over others! Don't you want to know that the foundation for their analysis is accurate and reliable?




Yes. And I am much more happy to talk about fluorosis indices when we are discussing it in context with a particular research article (i.e one that you post here) that you want to discuss the methodology of. Otherwise we're both wasting our time.



Whiskers said:


> your assertion that certain science is true and others that you disagree with are nothing but conspiracy theories.




Which science are you talking about matey. I haven't seen you post up one peer-reviewed scientific research article yet.  I'm giving you a chance matey, if you provide one example to back you up and it's good research, I'll concur and agree with it. The problem is that you haven't found anything. If you don't know what peer-reviewed research is, then look it up on Google.


----------



## Billyb (30 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> As you know, Qld is still rolling out fluoridation, started a couple of years ago and another year to go to complete. But what people are looking to is *the historical research from overseas that shows what can and will happen here in time,* at the .8 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l legislated fluoridation rate here in Qld.




You do not understand the legislation and guidelines.

I will correct you again because I am nice. The QLD legislation says that the average concentration over a quarter cannot exceed 0.9mg/L. This is within the safe range that you yourself said was optimal. The 1.5mg/L refers only to the maximum concentration in any single instant in time, do not get too hung up over it, that is why 1.5mg/L it is not even mentioned in the fluoridation legislation.

I refer you to section 5.1.1 and 5.3.1 of the Fluoridation code of practice which clearly states:

“The fluoridation dosing facility operator should ensure the fluoridated water complies with the prescribed concentration ( ±0.1mg/L) at least 95% of the time”​
“If fluoridated water leaving the fluoride dosing facility has a fluoride concentration greater than 0.3 mg/L above the prescribed fluoride concentration the fluoride dosing facility should be shut down immediately, the treatment plant supervisor should be notified and the cause of the elevated concentration should be investigated and rectified before recommencing dosing”​
What does this mean in Layman's terms you ask? it means only 5% of the time can the concentration exceed 0.9mg/L (0.8 + 0.1). It also means the plant would be shut down immediately (and investigated)when it reaches 1.1mg/L (0.8 + 0.3).

Please stop arguing about the QLD legislation. You do not understand them well yet. Please read them again, and also read the Code of Practice.


----------



## Whiskers (30 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> You do not understand the legislation and guidelines.




*I'm afraid you don't understand either, the legislation or the guidelines.*



> I will correct you again because I am nice.




I'm afraid you are neither correct or nice... matey!




> I refer you to section 5.1.1 and 5.3.1 of the Fluoridation code of practice which clearly states:
> 
> 
> “The fluoridation dosing facility operator* should* ensure the fluoridated water complies with the prescribed concentration ( ±0.1mg/L) at least 95% of the time”​“If fluoridated water leaving the fluoride dosing facility has a fluoride concentration greater than 0.3 mg/L above the prescribed fluoride concentration the fluoride dosing facility *should* be shut down immediately, the treatment plant supervisor *should* be notified and the cause of the elevated concentration* should* be investigated and rectified before recommencing dosing”​




*What you keep missing matey... is the legal meaning or force of the terminology in the Code of Conduct.*

"*must*" implies that there is a legislative requirement for the procedure or equipment. 

"*should*" implies that the procedure or equipment is consistent with the best practice approach detailed in the Code. 

You will notice that Queensland Health only *recommends not requires* that all performance criteria and minimum standards detailed in the Code be achieved at all times. 

The bottom line is "should" has no force in law or from Qld Health. 




> What does this mean in Layman's terms you ask? it means only 5% of the time can the concentration exceed 0.9mg/L (0.8 + 0.1). It also means the plant would be shut down immediately (and investigated)when it reaches 1.1mg/L (0.8 + 0.3).




You are quoting these numbers from the 'Code of Conduct'. They do not have the force of law as explained above with the meaning of "should" in the Terminology section. The 'Legislation' that I quoted earlier regulated the minimum quarterly daily average fluoridation rate between .8 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l.



> Please stop arguing about the QLD legislation. You do not understand them well yet. Please read them again, and also read the Code of Practice.




Just LOL LOL LOL 

Billy, matey I've snipped the relevant paragraphs that provide the meaning of the terms in the Code of Conduct below... as well as the investigation Report of the Fluoridation Overdose where the investigator summerised the legal requirement. 

I've also provided the links so people can check what I say for themselves. Something you continually refuse to do while spluttering your misinterpreted legal nonsense.

http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/ehu/fluoride_codepractice.pdf

http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/ehu/fluoride_investigate.pdf


----------



## Whiskers (30 March 2011)

C'mon Billy... just post the fluorosis photos that you and your profession use to illustrate the degree of fluorosis. There must be some in that text book you had the other night eh?

By the way, how long have you been out of med school... or are you using an antique text book?


----------



## medicowallet (31 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> By the way, how long have you been out of med school... or are you using an antique text book?




Even though they are doctors, they do not go to med school


----------



## Billyb (31 March 2011)

Wow, you really do have too much free time....



Whiskers said:


> The bottom line is "should" has no force in law or from Qld Health.




Actually, the bottom line is that the code of practice means that the water suppliers will follow the code to ensure concentrations are kept at 0.8-1.1mg/L. Unless of course they deliberately go out and disobey the code to harm us, which you may choose to believe if you wish to.


----------



## Whiskers (31 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Even though they are doctors, they do not go to med school




Well thanks for that doc. I thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and patronize him a bit. 

I'm not sure what he is... he says he's a dentist, but he also alluded to being some sort of specialist or having a specialty, earlier... maybe a professor 

Nah, he's not that smart. He don't know when to give up a bad joke.


----------



## Whiskers (31 March 2011)

Billyb said:


> Wow, you really do have too much free time....
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the bottom line is that the code of practice means that the* water suppliers* will follow the code to ensure concentrations are kept at 0.8-1.1mg/L. Unless of course they deliberately go out and *disobey the code *to harm us, which you may choose to believe if you wish to.




Gaud damit, matey... you're a glutten for punishment! 

"in some instances the fluoride dosing facility and reticulation system will be operated by different entities" 
[from the code of practice]
 

...and this code is just a code of best practice. It's self explinatory within the document that it's not enforcable... I repeat again, that Queensland Health only *recommends not requires* that all performance criteria and minimum standards detailed in the Code be achieved at all times. 




*But, Billy can you please post them photos for us so we can move on a bit.*


----------



## Billyb (3 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> and this code is just a code of best practice. It's self explinatory within the document that it's not enforcable...




Hey, I wonder why the QLD government would go to _all that trouble_ to make a Code of conduct for our water fluoridators to follow??! Why oh Why would they do that? Oh, that's right, it must be for OUR benefit, i.e to protect the public!! Surprise! Shock! Horror!!!
My advice to you is to try to be less cynical, no one's trying to poison you my friend, the code is there for your benefit mate.

Also,  I'm here to set facts straight, not break your ego! Don't take things too personally, it's just a little debate.


----------



## Whiskers (3 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> Hey, I wonder why the QLD government would go to _all that trouble_ to make a Code of conduct for our water fluoridators to follow??! Why oh Why would they do that?




The code is there to provide performance solutions and to help potable water and fluoridation suppliers achieve best practice and to meet the statutory requirements of the Water Fluoridation Act and Regulations... *not to protect the public per se.*

Read the Aim of the Code snip at bottom (and_ vii_ Structure of the Code).

*The code is intended to, and should be read in conjunction with the legislation...* which is premised on research that treats fluorosis (and other side effects) with disdain... and is now recognised as out of date and incomplete, ie not enough is known about side effects.

There is no force of law behind the code... only behind the legislation and regulations which say the daily average fluoridation rate over a quarterly reporting period must be in the range of .8 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l.



> Oh, that's right, it must be for OUR benefit, i.e to protect the public!! Surprise! Shock! Horror!!!




Well, that's the dictatorial 'I know what's best for you', your 'fluorosis is minor cosmedic, not a medical condition' and anyway 'it's in the greater public good' mentality.

You* cannot use the term* protect the public when 1/3 of children are likely to develop fluorosis which they do not want, nor would otherwise get, for the greater public good from forced mass medication (fluoridation), in a marginal at best attempt to achieve less caries in a small minority that don't practice good hygene.



> My advice to you is to try to be less cynical, no one's trying to poison you my friend, the code is there for your benefit mate.




You are continuing to dismiss any side effects of fluoridation as insignificant, mate.

It's synonomous with a police officer shooting a shotgun at an escaping shop lifter in a crowd and claiming all the colatteral damage to innocent bystanders was in the greater public good.

Just as the above police example doesn't know the colatteral damage they will cause, you do not know the colatteral damage from fluoridation because in your case you doggedly assume the 'authorities' and historic research are/is unbiased and demonstrating good judgement.

My whole point that you are continuing to side step is the Terms of Reference and indicies for historic research that much of your references refer to and rely on to some degree has been corrupted by the infiltration of the US Public Health System by ex ALCOA and associated fluoride polluting industry staff and associates. 



> Also, I'm here to set facts straight, not break your ego! Don't take things too personally, it's just a little debate.




So, *just for the "debate" post those pictures* you and your profession (dentists, you did say you are a dentist) use as teaching aids and reference for the degree of fluorosis... with the particular index type if known.

http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/ehu/fluoride_codepractice.pdf


----------



## DB008 (3 April 2011)

And again l ask these simple questions to the fluoride supporters;

1) Can you please show/prove/give me evidence that fluoride was carried out under a testing phase to show that it was actually beneficial for development of infants in strengthening their teeth to delay the onset of tooth decay/missing teeth? (A simple Fluoride vs Non Fluoride time frame graph/chart will suffice)

2) *Exactly* what type of "Fluoride" was used for these tests or during the introduction; and what type of Fluoride is being put into the water *today*?

2 simple questions...yet still not answered...


----------



## Billyb (3 April 2011)

DB008 said:


> 1) Can you please show/prove/give me evidence that fluoride was carried out under a testing phase to show that it was actually beneficial for development of infants in strengthening their teeth to delay the onset of tooth decay/missing teeth? (A simple Fluoride vs Non Fluoride time frame graph/chart will suffice)





Good questions, Dannyboy.

I will address your first question first.
The first study was done by a group of investigators led by a guy called Henry Dean, this was in the 40's I believe. You might think this is too old. So here's some newer research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19148404
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19060007



DB008 said:


> 2) *Exactly* what type of "Fluoride" was used for these tests or during the introduction; and what type of Fluoride is being put into the water *today*?




Water fluoridation is something best studied using retrospective research. This means there is no point doing 'tests' because you are better of just studying the prevalence of caries and fluorosis in communities which are already fluoridated. You look at those places, you compare the decay rates to similar places which are not fluoridated, and you check whether decay rates are lower in the fluoridated town. The research is saying (wihtout a doubt) that YES, water fluordiation works and reduces dental caries. See my above answer.


----------



## Billyb (3 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Youcannot use the term protect the public when 1/3 of children are likely to develop fluorosis which they do not want, nor would otherwise get, for the greater public good from forced mass medication (fluoridation), in a marginal at best attempt to achieve less caries in a small minority that don't practice good hygene.




Firstly, In this post you refer to only dental fluorosis when mentioning possible side effects of WF, I note that you did not mention things like cancer or osteoperosis or IBS or any of the other (unproven) medical effects that anti-fluoridists claim. I'm glad.  

You seem to have forgotten that Australia already has a fairly long history of fluoridation, QLD is not the first place. Many Australian towns and cities have been fluoridated for decades and there is no evidence (that I’m aware of) of anything close to the 1/3rd incidence of fluorosis in those towns/cities that you think will happen in QLD. 

Retrospective studies in the future will show whether or not 1/3rd of children get fluorosis from QLD fluoridation like you claim, although I highly suspect this wont be the case. This is your opinion only and (I think – correct me if I’m wrong) you formed this opinion by taking figures from just one USA website link and applying it to the QLD situation – this is very unscientific, perhaps you need to accept that all you are doing is taking a bit of a wild guess here. In order to make your (shaky) argument more acceptable to other readers, you also failed to mention that *97% of the children who had fluorosis in that USA study had only mild or very mild fluorosis. *

Look at the cost-benefit analysis. I don’t mind a few extra people with mild fluorosis if it saves a lot more of those disadvanataged people (eg aboriginal communities) coming into my surgery to have abscessed teeth taken out due to gross rampant caries. 

People *die* from dental abscesses Whisker, including in Queensland. Dental caries is a mch bigger issue than mild fluorosis. Perhaps this should put the cost of ‘mild fluorosis’ (cosmetic problem only) into perspective a little more for you.

If you have a hammer, everything will look like a nail. You are just looking for anything to back up the anti-fluoridist belief/ideas, u*nfortunately none of the sources you use are peer-reviewed research and so I cannot accept it and neither would the scientific community*. In other words, if you were trying to make a case, the experts wouldn’t even bother to give it a look. What you are then left with is just a small group of people. If  this small anti-fluoridist group is right, we’ll find out in the future, but IMO I highly doubt it and I think pigs will fly first. 

By the way, most of the research I referred to doesn’t use those indices, actually. If you want me to talk about indices, refer me to the particular research article I posted that uses them, and then I will gladly. THe photo you posted is obviously not mild, but what is more important is what is the cause of it - more than likely it is not due to (controlled) water fluoridation but more likely from toothpaste ingestion or fluoride tablets.


----------



## DB008 (3 April 2011)

I then ask from your answers, why does most of Europe (and now it looks like USA will follow suit), decrease or simply to not put Fluoride into their water then?


----------



## DB008 (3 April 2011)

COMET ASSAY OF DNA DAMAGE IN BRAIN CELLS OF ADULT RATS EXPOSED TO HIGH FLUORIDE AND LOW IODINE
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/383/files/383209-214.pdf

EFFECT OF HIGH-FLUORIDE WATER ON INTELLIGENCE IN CHILDREN
http://www.casociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/fluoride-research-report-china.pdf

Table 4. Fluoride studies: IQ and Behavioral Effects
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/epa-sf/table.4.iq.behav.pdf


> In endemic fluorosis areas, drinking water fluoride levels greater than 1.0 mg/L may adversely affect the development of children’s intelligence.


----------



## Billyb (3 April 2011)

DB008 said:


> COMET ASSAY OF DNA DAMAGE IN BRAIN CELLS OF ADULT RATS EXPOSED TO HIGH FLUORIDE AND LOW IODINE
> http://www.fluorideresearch.org/383/files/383209-214.pdf




Yes, fluoride is a poison at those sorts of crazy high proportions. You would die of oxygen too if you were to breathe it at such high concentrations. I'm not surprised by this study.




DB008 said:


> EFFECT OF HIGH-FLUORIDE WATER ON INTELLIGENCE IN CHILDREN
> http://www.casociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/fluoride-research-report-china.pdf




Interesting. 

Couple of comments.
This is only one study. We need to see more examples of studies like this (to reduce the influence of bias) or preferably a meta-analysis.
Secondly, the concentrations of fluoride in the water are quite high in that town, Australian concentrations are much lower.

The third reference is from a biased fluoride website so I might not need to comment on that one


----------



## Billyb (3 April 2011)

DB008 said:


> I then ask from your answers, why does most of Europe (and now it looks like USA will follow suit), decrease or simply to not put Fluoride into their water then?




Europe's decision is based on ethical, not scientific reasons. So it's fair enough. Just because they're not doing it doesn't mean they are saying fluoride causes diseases.


----------



## DB008 (3 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> Secondly, the concentrations of fluoride in the water are quite high in that town, *Australian concentrations are much lower.*




Depends. 
What if you add in all the Fluoride that you ingest from other sources....and drink fluoridated water too...


----------



## Julia (3 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> Look at the cost-benefit analysis. I don’t mind a few extra people with mild fluorosis ...



Billy, just look at what you have said here.  How egocentric!  YOU 'don't mind' a few extra people with fluorosis.....!
No, I don't suppose you do.  It's not you who is seeing ugly mottled teeth every time you open your mouth.  Have a little empathy, for heaven's sake.



> if it saves a lot more of those disadvanataged people (eg aboriginal communities) coming into my surgery to have abscessed teeth taken out due to gross rampant caries.



So perhaps give more attention to getting aboriginal communities to take responsibility for themselves and take fluoride tablets.
I am so utterly sick of the whole population being affected by the failure of a few to take the responsibility they should.  And the more we keep patronising and nannying them, the less incentive they will have to make any changes.

Maybe go and talk with Noel Pearson about the damage that patronising welfare is doing to his people.


----------



## Whiskers (3 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> Firstly, In this post you refer to only dental fluorosis when mentioning possible side effects of WF, I note that you did not mention things like cancer or osteoperosis or IBS or any of the other (unproven) medical effects that anti-fluoridists claim. I'm glad.




I'm trying to keep it a simple step by step process starting with some pictorial evidence of your classification of the degree of fluorosis... still waiting!



> You seem to have forgotten that Australia already has a fairly long history of fluoridation, QLD is not the first place. Many Australian towns and cities have been fluoridated for decades and there is no evidence (that I’m aware of) of anything close to the 1/3rd incidence of fluorosis in those towns/cities that you think will happen in QLD.




Well I would make the point I made earlier, there is none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 

Also, where is the research to "prove" that there is not significant fluorosis in these areas. No research is not proof of no fluorosis.



> Retrospective studies in the future will show whether or not 1/3rd of children get fluorosis from QLD fluoridation like you claim, although I highly suspect this wont be the case. This is your opinion only and (I think – *correct me if I’m wrong*) you formed this opinion by taking figures from just one USA website link and applying it to the QLD situation – this is very unscientific, perhaps you need to accept that all you are doing is taking a bit of a wild guess here.




You are wrong... It was a finding of the mainstream US Public Health System. check the link again.



> In order to make your (shaky) argument more acceptable to other readers, you also failed to mention that *97% of the children who had fluorosis in that USA study had only mild or very mild fluorosis. *




Which brings us back to the point of what you and the Dean index consider as minor fluorosis. Show us the pictorial examples that you use.




> Look at the cost-benefit analysis.




Oh yes, that just shows that fluoridation is the cheapest way to distribute fluoride (mass medicate) to the whole population, nothing more.

You still haven't given any economic evidence that the cost of fluoridation is less than the long term effects or other forms of dental intervention.



> I don’t mind a few extra people with mild fluorosis if it saves a lot more of those disadvanataged people (eg aboriginal communities) coming into my surgery to have abscessed teeth taken out due to gross rampant caries.




Another example of misplaced dictatorial misjudgment.

So why should otherwise healthy people have to suffer any fluorosis when the fluoridation system doesn't reach those most disadvantaged aboriginal communities that don't have reticulated water let alone fluoridation now or in the future?



> People *die* from dental abscesses Whisker, including in Queensland.
> Dental caries is a mch bigger issue than mild fluorosis. Perhaps this should put the cost of ‘mild fluorosis’ (cosmetic problem only) into perspective a little more for you.




Many, many more* die* from tobacco and alcohol disease, so by your mass medication fluoride logic we should mass medicate anti tobacco and anti alcohol drugs/chemicals too... at least before we mass medicate for dental caries.

Well, we'll never know what you mean by mild fluorosis if you never post an illustration.

But again, who are you to say people with otherwise healthy teeth and hygene should suffer a "(cosmetic problem only)" condition in a shot gun approach to catch the worst caries conditions.

Your logic is getting worse than the police example shooting into a crowd to get a shoplifter... you are now shooting into a crowd (general suburbia) to get an offender that is not even in that crowd, but lives in the bush.



> THe photo you posted is obviously not mild,




Obviously not mild, well finally that's a start.



> ...but what is more important is what is the cause of it - more than likely it is not due to (controlled) water fluoridation but more likely from toothpaste ingestion or fluoride tablets.




...which comes back to DB008's issue of the safety of fluoride per se for children under two. If tooth paste or fluoride tablets are the most likely cause of this why don't you advocate more stringent safety warnings for fluoride products? 

I suppose it's too obvious. It would enlighten more people about the risks of fluoridation.

Still waiting for those pictorial examples of the range of degree of fluorosis... especially your mild fluorosis.


----------



## medicowallet (3 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Also, where is the research to "prove" that there is not significant fluorosis in these areas. No research is not proof of no fluorosis.




You continually take the position whereby you must have all evidence of something that does not really matter.

Why would someone in Australia fund research into fluorosis in a particular area when the research already exists.

I have siad it before and I'll say it again:

ALL it takes is ONE study by the conspiracy theorists to SHUT DOWN the ENTIRE fluoridation system.

Why has this SINGLE study not been produced?

Show me a SINGLE cost > benefit study and I shall join your side and advocate for the abolition of fluoridation where this is the case.


----------



## Whiskers (4 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> You continually take the position whereby you must have all evidence of something that does not really matter.
> 
> Why would someone in Australia fund research into fluorosis in a particular area when the research already exists.




It does matter in the logic of Billyb's arguement because he continually insists that overseas precedent regarding fluorosis (and other side effects) from long term exposure to fluoridation isn't relevant to the Qld fluoridation rate.



> I have siad it before and I'll say it again:
> 
> ALL it takes is ONE study by the conspiracy theorists to SHUT DOWN the ENTIRE fluoridation system.
> 
> Why has this SINGLE study not been produced?




That's a contradiction in terms. You and certainly the pro fluoridation proponents don't accept a 'study' if it comes from what you consider conspiracy theorists. An impossible request to satisfy.

Simply, there are studies and fluoridation is being shut down in the US and Canada where the long term net (financial and political) cost benefit is not being realised.



> Show me a SINGLE cost > benefit study and I shall join your side and advocate for the abolition of fluoridation where this is the case.




I mentioned in an earlier post that the Qld gov claimed in it's legislative process to have commissioned cost benefit report, BUT it is an unpublished report, which I haven't yet been able to see to determine whether it's a run of the mill cost of fluoridation v estimated cost savings of caries repairs, or a holistic economic study.

If you are a doc, you may have better luck than me in obtaining a copy so we can all see the truth of the Qld cost analysis.


----------



## medicowallet (4 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> It does matter in the logic of Billyb's arguement because he continually insists that overseas precedent regarding fluorosis (and other side effects) from long term exposure to fluoridation isn't relevant to the Qld fluoridation rate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thankyou.

It is interesting to see that you have such firmly held views, with your self reported lack of information on the subject.

Perhaps in the US it is being shut down because of litigation instead of pubic health reasons - eg people can get heart failure from poor dental health and their insurance companies will pay for it, but IF they get fluorosis, it may be a $3 million payout. In Australia, at the moment, we have more humane policies, and I kind of like it that way, do you?


----------



## Whiskers (4 April 2011)

Latest news in my Email: Confirms my suspicions on the verasity of the representation of fluoridation research, in particular that part that is unpublished. 

Note: Graph didn't reproduce in copy & paste but reproduced at bottom.





> *Please feel free to forward to your contacts and MPs*
> 
> *FAN-Australia drops a bombshell on Water Fluoridation.*
> 
> ...


----------



## medicowallet (4 April 2011)

What journal was this published in, so that I can analyse the methodology, sampling and bias myself.

eg did they control for Vitamin D etc.  (You do realise that Vitamin D deficiency can result in delayed expression of teeth and that Queensland has a thing called sunshine?)

I doubt it.

No doubt it is another unpublished biased, unscientific study you are trying to peddle to the masses.


----------



## Billyb (4 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> L atest news in my Email: Confirms my suspicions on the verasity of the representation of fluoridation research, in particular that part that is unpublished.]




Here we go again... the anti-fluoridist-conspiracy theorist-groups are at it again...trying to twist anything around to help back up their weak arguments.

In ACTUAL fact, the reason for the earlier eruption in QLD children is because more QLD children are losing their deciduous teeth early due to dental decay than the other states (which are fluoridated). Early loss of deciduous teeth results in accelerated eruption of their permanent successors.

You guys love to beat up anything. Sometimes it makes me laugh.


----------



## Billyb (4 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> ALL it takes is ONE study by the conspiracy theorists to SHUT DOWN the ENTIRE fluoridation system.
> 
> Why has this SINGLE study not been produced?
> 
> Show me a SINGLE cost > benefit study and I shall join your side and advocate for the abolition of fluoridation where this is the case.




Exactly! This Whiskers fella can't even show one (peer-reviewed) study, and he says the reason he wont is because we'll brand him a conspiracy theorist. How convenient for him, hey?|!



Julia said:


> YOU 'don't mind' a few extra people with fluorosis.....!
> No, I don't suppose you do.  It's not you who is seeing ugly mottled teeth every time you open your mouth.  Have a little empathy, for heaven's sake.




I'm talking about mild fluorosis. Only severe fluorosis has mottling. Mild fluorosis is a just a few specks of white on the teeth. Probably 99% of fluorosis in Australia is of the mild type (from what I've seen). Here's a photo of mild fluorosis

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/159/10/943/POA50053F1

The point I'm making Julia, is that I don't mind even 10 people suffering that mild degree of fluorosis if it means one person doesn't die from a dental abscess caused by decay. 

Whiskers likes to take things out of proportion for the sake of arguing. No one's gonna get mottling fluorosis from the low concentrations of fluoride in QLD water. No one can drink that much water or else their stomach would explode. If they get mottling fluorosis, it'll be from eating toothpaste or too many fluoride tablets. For heaven's sake, this guy loves to exaggerate everything related to fluoride, almost a fear campaign he is running.


----------



## Whiskers (5 April 2011)

Well, we finally have a fluorosis picture from Billyb... from his above link. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...943/POA50053F1


Like so much of the adverse effects of fluoridation, he is a bit shy in sticking it out in the open, so I snipped it here, with my next question.

Billyb, explain the physiological process that is hypomineralisation with the associated minerals etc that is/causes dental fluorosis?


----------



## Whiskers (5 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> What journal was this published in, so that I can analyse the methodology, sampling and bias myself.




That's the whole point, it wasn't published by ARCPOH (The Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health at the Adelaide Dental School). 

You will recall in earlier posts I specifically noted some of the qualifications in their published research that the pro fluoridation lobby gloss over or ignore in misrepresenting the findings.

Last time I looked, ARCPOH was sponsored by and or otherwise associated with Colgate who was one of ALCOA's first allies to promote fluoride in the US. So even though they are the best source of statistics we have in Aus they can hardly claim pure impartiality in the fluoride debate.



> eg did they control for Vitamin D etc. (You do realize that Vitamin D deficiency can result in delayed expression of teeth and that Queensland has a thing called sunshine?)
> 
> I doubt it.




Lol lol... what you don't have sunshine down south!? 

Show me any of your peer reviewed research that allows for Vitamin D, or more particularly proximity to equator, in determining the degree of fluorosis.




Billyb said:


> In ACTUAL fact, the reason for the earlier eruption in QLD children is because more QLD children are losing their deciduous teeth early due to dental decay than the other states (which are fluoridated). Early loss of deciduous teeth results in accelerated eruption of their permanent successors.




Lol lol again.

Even the ARCPOH research shows Qld 5 to 6 yo dmft mid range. 

Thats *deciduous* (d)ecay, (m)issing, (f)illed (t)eeth (dmft)... NOT permanent teeth (DMFT).

http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/html_files/cdhs2002.pdf

Hasn't Vic, ACT and NT been fluoridated for 30 to 40 years... and where's NSW in the survey... oh, that's right, they couldn't comply with the survey.


----------



## medicowallet (5 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> That's the whole point, it wasn't published by ARCPOH (The Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health at the Adelaide Dental School).
> 
> You will recall in earlier posts I specifically noted some of the qualifications in their published research that the pro fluoridation lobby gloss over or ignore in misrepresenting the findings.
> 
> ...




1, So it isn't published, nor peer reviewed... 

2. Was not referring to fluorosis (good try to get back onto that insignificant point you hold so dear), I was referring to age of tooth eruption. 

I can also tell you that Australia has an interestingly increasing risk of osteoporosis due to the slip slop slap campaign, and lack of sun exposure. Of course this is higher in cooler areas where there are also less hours of sun per day. Hence, has it been controlled for that Queensland children would have higher Vit D levels, and/or southern Australian children may have subnormal levels of Vitamin D.


----------



## motorway (5 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> 1, So it isn't published, nor peer reviewed...
> 
> 2. Was not referring to fluorosis (good try to get back onto that insignificant point you hold so dear), I was referring to age of tooth eruption.
> 
> I can also tell you that Australia has an interestingly increasing risk of osteoporosis due to the slip slop slap campaign, and lack of sun exposure. Of course this is higher in cooler areas where there are also less hours of sun per day. Hence, has it been controlled for that Queensland children would have higher Vit D levels, and/or southern Australian children may have subnormal levels of Vitamin D.




http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3181285.htm

This hit the news lines last few days

Vitamin D Status is very much related to Latitude.. because it is UVB not UVA that makes Vitamin D... And Rickets is associated with age of Teeth Eruption ..

If there is a resurgence of Rickets in Australia that is just a Visible Tip of a wider 
Vitamin Deficiency and Insufficiency Epidemic.

Teeth Health is Strongly associated with Vitamin D Status.

( Whiskers it is a Universal Cause and as such an Invisible one to most of these Studies on Fluoride refer last postings in the Vitamin D Thread  )

Qld has clear advantages over Southern States
You would make some Vitmin D even with casual Sun Exposure
Maybe all through the Year at least in the middle of the Day
( Again the recent MS study )





> *For the babies though, it increases the risk of rickets and we're seeing a resurgence of rickets in Australia.* Babies are being born with lower bone mass and some of the babies are having low calcium and in the women you mentioned who have very dark skinned or are veiled, some babies even have epileptic seizures from low blood calcium because they don't have any vitamin D.




That  Should Truly Amaze ( But not when you realize how important Vit D is )
*A Resurgence of Rickets.
*


Motorway


----------



## Julia (5 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> 1, So it isn't published, nor peer reviewed...



I'm reluctant to enter the fray on this.  However, that's a reasonable point to make.
But I'm not sure such a comment is always completely valid on the basis that many publications have their own agenda, and will refuse to publish what doesn't accord with that agenda.  Ditto in some cases the peer review process.



> I can also tell you that Australia has an interestingly increasing risk of osteoporosis due to the slip slop slap campaign, and lack of sun exposure.



Very likely true but I suppose it's another example of benefits v risks in consideration of skin cancers.  It could be argued that a melanoma is probably a greater risk than osteoporosis.
At least some of the risk of reduced Vit D seems to have been addressed with the addition of Vit D to most of the bone building medications prescribed for osteoporosis.


----------



## medicowallet (5 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Very likely true but I suppose it's another example of benefits v risks in consideration of skin cancers.  It could be argued that a melanoma is probably a greater risk than osteoporosis.
> At least some of the risk of reduced Vit D seems to have been addressed with the addition of Vit D to most of the bone building medications prescribed for osteoporosis.




I agree, I was just using it to highlight some evidence of Vit D deficiency.


----------



## Whiskers (5 April 2011)

Julia said:


> I'm reluctant to enter the fray on this. However, that's a reasonable point to make.
> But I'm not sure such a comment is always completely valid on the basis that* many publications have their own agenda, and will refuse to publish what doesn't accord with that agenda. Ditto in some cases the peer review process*.



Julia, I'm on a fishing trip with these fella's, but the highlighted bit is the point I'm after. 
____________________________________

Just to recap my point from a few posts back now, for all my followers that Billyb in particular seems to fear , there are many qualifications in the research that we are presented with that the average person isn't aware of and extremists try to gloss over or omit to consider all together.

*Often what is not said or present(ed) can say or pose more questions than answers.*


The ARCPOH child dental health surveys for example:
Data items are not collected uniformly across all states and territories.

New South Wales are excluded due to a lack of representativeness of the sample.

*There are no formal sessions of calibration or instruction in diagnosis undertaken for the purpose of the survey, and there are no repeat examinations for the purpose of assessing inter- or intra-examiner reliability.*

The data for the Child Dental Health Survey are derived from routine examinations of children enrolled in the school dental services. *Children not enrolled **with the school dental service are not represented in the sample*. 
the estimates cannot be applied to children who are not enrolled in the school dental services. Consequently, the results do not represent the complete Australian child population.​
There are some* variations among state and territory programs* with respect to priority age groups and the nature of services. As a consequence,* there are **variations in the extent of enrolment in school dental services*, with some jurisdictions serving more than 80% of primary school children and others serving lower percentages.​



medicowallet said:


> 1, So it isn't published, nor peer reviewed...



That was my point... *it was not published, nor mentioned anywhere to qualify the research presented by ARCPOH in the Child Dental Health Survey.* 

The obvious question is why, and the apparent answer is that it has a significant impact on the findings of their research and major sponser, Colgate, who has been a close associate with ALCOA from the initiation of fluoridation. Adgenda? Terms of reference of research? 


> 2. Was not referring to fluorosis (good try to get back onto that insignificant point you hold so dear), I was referring to age of tooth eruption.



But the main point of my question which you evade again, was
_Show me any of your peer reviewed research that allows for Vitamin D, or more particularly proximity to equator... _​You bought into the debate on fluorosis (and other influences and side effects) which are a consequence. 


motorway said:


> Vitamin D Status is very much related to Latitude.. because it is UVB not UVA that makes Vitamin D... And Rickets is associated with age of Teeth Eruption ..
> 
> If there is a resurgence of Rickets in Australia that is just a Visible Tip of a wider
> Vitamin Deficiency and Insufficiency Epidemic.
> ...



Yes, I totally agree with you motorway.

But the point I'm driving at is in none of the peer reviewed pro fluoridation research that I've seen makes any allowance for Vitamin D. 

Also since Qld has significant immigration from the southern states, there is also no consideration for that in the ARCPOH child dental health surveys. 

Someone may be able to provide the socioeconomic data of those immigrants from the southern states, but from my experience many have moved to Qld because it was too expensive for them to live down south and settled in vast new rural residential areas where dental services are totally absent.

*Isn't this another strong case NOT to need fluoridation in Qld?*

"Teeth Health is Strongly associated with Vitamin D Status."


----------



## motorway (5 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Julia, I'm on a fishing trip with these fella's, but the highlighted bit is the point I'm after.
> ____________________________________
> 
> 
> ...




ON balance Absolutely.... But you have significant Ignorance on what is necessary for optimum health. eg Julia states that Bones supplements have alleviated the need for Vitamin D .... Tell that to the Children born to Vitamins D deficient Mothers ! ==> And they were not some selected sample .. They were just AVERAGE mothers.

Many many minerals and vitamins are necessary for optimal Health. Fluoride does NOT appear to be TOP of that list.

Do a Search for Triage Theory and Bruce Ames 

Melanoma ? One significant form is certainly NOT correlated  positively with UVB exposure QUITE the contrary ...

I am all for people being responsible for their own Health and free to make their OWN choices.

Motorway


----------



## Billyb (5 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Just to recap my point from a few posts back now, for *all my followers*




Lol, you are deluded.



Whiskers said:


> That was my point... it was not published, nor mentioned anywhere to qualify the research presented by ARCPOH in the Child Dental Health Survey.




Not published. No evidence. So the data may not even exist, it might have been made up by some crackjob anti-fluoridist!! We (logical people) don't care for those sorts of unsubstantiated craps.



Whiskers said:


> The ARCPOH child dental health surveys for example:
> 
> "





Yes, the Arcpoh statistics are unreliable. You spurt it all over the place when the statistics suit you, but when you want to paint them as 'misleading the public', you say their data is unreliable. How convenient for you!



Whiskers said:


> Thats *deciduous* (d)ecay, (m)issing, (f)illed (t)eeth (dmft)... NOT permanent teeth (DMFT).




You fail to understand. If QLD children are losing their decidous teeth early (due to no WF) they would also have earlier eruption of permanent teeth. Don't refer to ARCPOH statistics if you think it's wrong.

The vitamin D point is a very good point. Before we get excited and start blaming it on the alleged delayed eruption times in other states, it would be wise to actually see some (proper) data which actually shows (in an unbiased fashion) the eruption times of QLD versus other states.


----------



## medicowallet (5 April 2011)

1. I DID NOT bring up fluoridation YOU DID. Stop trying to put words into my mouth.

2. I think your players do not understand dmft and DMFT and I also suspect they may be misrepresenting NHMRC wrt to these terms.

if someone is using dmft, then the person in the fluoridated area (whom you believe has delayed eruption of teeth), should have worse deciduous teeth, especially at older age groups as on average they have these teeth longer. I have looked at fig 14, and moving the <0.3 to the appropriate >0.7 column does, in no way support your argument.

I suggest you read the relevant fluoridation areas in the following two links, to help educate you on the science of fluoridation.

I particularly appreciated the easy to decipher graphs (fig 14 and on) in the ARCPOH

http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/html_files/cdhs2002.pdf
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/Eh41_Flouridation_PART_A.pdf


----------



## Julia (5 April 2011)

motorway said:


> ON balance Absolutely.... But you have significant Ignorance on what is necessary for optimum health. eg Julia states that Bones supplements have alleviated the need for Vitamin D .... Tell that to the Children born to Vitamins D deficient Mothers




Motorway, kindly do not distort my remarks.
I simply made the factual observation that Vit D has been added to the bone building medications designed to assist with osteoporosis.

I have made no comment about what is needed for 'optimum health', neither do I feel any need to tell anything to the children born to Vit D deficient mothers.

The problem with zealots is that they lose any sense of rational objectivity and confuse simple comments with pronouncements about something else entirely.


----------



## motorway (5 April 2011)

Julia said:


> I'm reluctant to enter the fray on this.  However, that's a reasonable point to make.
> But I'm not sure such a comment is always completely valid on the basis that many publications have their own agenda, and will refuse to publish what doesn't accord with that agenda.  Ditto in some cases the peer review process.
> 
> 
> ...




As the thread is about Fluoride and dental health 
I took your comments as you stated them
and they followed my posting on the issue were I pointed to Vit D as a concern.

" the risk of reduced Vit D seems to have been addressed with the addition of Vit D to most of the bone building medications"

I disagree I doubt that makes me a Zealot 
I tend to think your statement is wrong !

I think that==>

*Very little risk of vitamin D deficiency is addressed by the small amounts in Bone supplements *

esp regarding health  of children or their Dental Health

Whatever " bone meds " those mothers in the Study were taking ( If any ) IT IS CLEARLY NOT ADDRESSING
VITAMIN D RISK as you posted .

Quotes from the actual study 



> Of 147 women who were studied late in pregnancy (at a mean of 35 weeks’ gestation), about 40% had vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency (serum 25[OH]D concentrations ≤ 50 nmol/L). Most of the women in this study were not white, and ethnicity, occupational status and season, not surprisingly, all influenced 25(OH)D concentrations, while body mass index did not. Perhaps more surprisingly, however, 25(OH)D concentrations were inversely associated with fasting and 2-hour glucose levels measured during an oral glucose tolerance test and with the marker of glycaemic control, glycated haemoglobin. Most importantly, serum 25(OH)D was an independent predictor of glycaemic control.






> The public health implications of vitamin D deficiency in pregnancy are far broader than glycaemic control. In Australia, there has been a resurgence of rickets ”” partly owing to an increased refugee population comprising dark-skinned and veiled women with vitamin D deficiency, and also because of decreased exposure of babies to sunlight, lack of supplementation of infant feeds with vitamin D and weaning of infants onto non-milk liquids.
> 
> Milder forms of bone disease may also occur with vitamin D deficiency. Recently, a study that used three-dimensional ultrasonography in pregnant women showed that vitamin D deficiency was associated with increased femur metaphyseal cross-sectional area and increased femur splaying (the ratio of femoral metaphyseal cross-sectional area to femoral length) at as early as 19 weeks’ gestation.11 In addition, it was previously shown that children born to mothers with vitamin D deficiency (< 50 nmol/L) during pregnancy exhibit deficits in total body bone mineral content as great as 11% at 9 years of age.12 This could lead to an increased risk of osteoporotic fracture later in adult life, but this is unlikely to be evaluated in long-term studies.
> 
> ...




The Woman Interviewed on ABC News last night looked to  Me a fair skinned Caucasian.
She could not believe that she could be so Vitamin D deficient ! She was part of the Study.

Again I doubt the small amounts in BONE MEDS have resolved any risk to these children of Vitamin D Deficient Mothers ..... as I took your statement to imply



> at least some of the risk of reduced Vit D seems to have been addressed with the addition of Vit D to most of the bone building medications prescribed for osteoporosis.





Strongly Disagree ... And Also to your Zealot tag.

What do you think teeth are made of ?
Do you think Vitamin D would play a role ?
How would the small amounts in most Bone Supplements help against carries and periodontal diseases ?

*Julia I was taking your comments In context of the Thread
*


Vitamin D status and periodontal disease among pregnant women
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20809861


Low vitamin D status likely contributes to the link between periodontal disease and breast cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21437609

Motorway


----------



## Whiskers (5 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> 1. I DID NOT bring up fluoridation YOU DID. Stop trying to put words into my mouth.




BUT, you were replying to my post about the integrity of the fluoridation research. Your comment below.



medicowallet said:


> What journal was this published in, so that I can analyse the methodology, sampling and bias myself.
> 
> eg did they control for Vitamin D etc. (You do realise that Vitamin D deficiency can result in delayed expression of teeth and that Queensland has a thing called sunshine?)
> 
> ...




I'm not disputing that Vit D has a significant influence. The whole gist of my crititism of the pro fluoridation research is there are many things that isn't taken into account... or as we are tending to see, not published... presumabely because it clashes with the adgenda of the particular research or their sponsers, in this case Colgate and their long association with ALCOA, and the American Dental Association who have been substantially muffled in their influence in the US Public Health System.

*So, where is Vit D considered and adjusted for in any of the ARCPOH research?*



> 2. I think your players




My players! I'm my own person, just asking some simple questions that the pro fluoridation lobby find uncomfortable.



> do not understand dmft and DMFT and I also suspect they may be misrepresenting NHMRC wrt to these terms.




I do... I highlighted the difference between dmft and DMFT in my earlier post. Read again.



> if someone is using dmft, then the person in the fluoridated area (whom *you* believe has delayed eruption of teeth),




Hang on mate...* you introduced the arguement about Vit D* and delayed eruption. I don't dissagree with it, but the point is, since you think it's a significant issue, where is it considered and allowed for in the research?



> should have worse deciduous teeth, especially at older age groups as on average they have these teeth longer. I have looked at fig 14, and moving the <0.3 to the appropriate >0.7 column does, in no way support your argument.




Well, by your criteria, your opinion here is no more valid than that which you criticize.




> I suggest you read the relevant fluoridation areas in the following two links, to help educate you on the science of fluoridation.
> 
> I particularly appreciated the easy to decipher graphs (fig 14 and on) in the ARCPOH
> 
> ...




Oh yes, the science... the quality and bias of!

I'm familiar with those links and the most pertenant issue is the frequency of that term efficacy (the ability to produce a desired or intended result) the pro fluoridation lobby like to throw around, that is too often confused with the holostic (economic) efficiency of fluoridation.

The other significant point is that both reports are reports are essentially done by the same people from the same data... and doesn't change anything about the questions I'm trying to get you to answer about the holistic economics of fluoridation, the degree and prevelance of fluorosis and your latest offering to side step the previous issues... the impact of Vit D in this research.

*You introduced Vit D into the debate, where is it considered and allowed for in the fluioridation research?*


----------



## Whiskers (5 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> Lol, you are deluded.




Nah, just responding to your earlier fear of 'my following'. 

This is what you said a couple of pages back.


Billyb said:


> I don't post to argue with these sort of people, I post so that other people don't read his posts and get the wrong information.






> Not published. No evidence. So the data may not even exist, it might have been made up by some crackjob anti-fluoridist!! We (logical people) don't care for those sorts of unsubstantiated craps.




If you doubt it you get a FOI copy and show us. 



> Yes, the Arcpoh statistics are unreliable. You spurt it all over the place when the statistics suit you, but when you want to paint them as 'misleading the public', you say their data is unreliable. How convenient for you!




I'm simply highlighting the qualifications that they have to include with their research to avoid litigation and continue to get government funding... that many including you seem to miss the significance of.



> You fail to understand. If QLD children are losing their decidous teeth early (due to no WF) they would also have earlier eruption of permanent teeth. Don't refer to ARCPOH statistics if you think it's wrong.




The only reason I refer to ARCPOH is that is what the Qld Gov based their arguement on... and to highlight the shortcomings of that research and the Qld Gov decision.



> The vitamin D point is a very good point. Before we get excited and start blaming it on the alleged delayed eruption times in other states, it would be wise to actually see some (proper) data which actually shows (in an unbiased fashion) the eruption times of QLD versus other states.




Now we're on the same page. 

But Billy, before we wander too far off track again... could you spell out the physiological function/effect of fluoridation, please?

I still want to work through this process with you.


----------



## medicowallet (6 April 2011)

Lol whiskers, keep on digging, I mentioned that it was potentially vitamin D that changed eruption times, and even though it is a known fact that Vitamin D can alter eruption, it is purely my own theory that the Queensland data may be explained by this, hence I did not refer to it in the context that you believe.

If you carefully read the post, it is in fact YOUR post which makes the point that FLUORIDE changes eruption, and THIS is what I am referring to, you know the part whereby YOU state that Queensland children have earlier tooth eruption. You are obviously not a clear enough reader to get this point.

Perhaps this will remind you



medicowallet said:


> if someone is using dmft, then the person in the *fluoridated area* (whom you believe has delayed eruption of teeth), should have worse deciduous teeth, especially at older age groups as on average they have these teeth longer. I have looked at fig 14, and moving the <0.3 to the appropriate >0.7 column does, in no way support your argument.





Please, CAREFULLY read it again, at the level that any semi-competent scientist would, then you would not continuously make such elementary mistakes.


I also note how you have absolutely no comment, apart from denial about the extremely well presented, clear evidence in the graphs which the link refers to, and you are apparently so familiar with.

So I will spell it out VERY clearly.

1. Where is the rebuttal to the data listed in this study which disproves the conclusions it draws? (clearly this data has been available for a while, enough time to be debated by the conspiracy theorists, and PUBLISHED)

2. How come adjustment (which I have tried to explain, would actually be detrimental to fluoridation) of the data allowing for supposed changes in tooth eruption STILL supports fluoridation.


But NO, once again, in your denial and brainwashed idealogies you will NEVER look at, nor attempt to address these simple statistics, which, if you could disprove would ensure abolition of fluoridation worldwide. Something people smarter than you and I have been trying to do for years, in their conspiracy theorist guise.

I enjoy reading your posts, it makes me realise that you are clearly deranged in your belief that fluoridation is undesirable to the population, and I pity anyone who does not share your view on something you are clearly not educated about, for they will never be able to enlighten you about your derangement as you are clearly not ever going to accept clear, proven, undisputable data.


----------



## Whiskers (6 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Lol whiskers, keep on digging, I mentioned that it was potentially vitamin D that changed eruption times, and even though it is a known fact that Vitamin D can alter eruption, *it is purely my own theory* that the Queensland data may be explained by this, hence I did not refer to it in the context that you believe.




Ok, well I won't waste any more time getting off track chasing your 'theoritical' red herrings.



> If you carefully read the post, it is in fact YOUR post which makes the point that FLUORIDE changes eruption, and THIS is what I am referring to, you know the part whereby *YOU state* that Queensland children have earlier tooth eruption. You are obviously not a clear enough reader to get this point.




*Wrong*. I did not.

Gees mate, it would be good if you could check for the "quote". You will find that I posted an email from _Queenslanders For Safe Water on behalf of Fluoride Action Network Australia Inc_ who made the statement_*.*_

What I said is "Confirms my suspicions on the verasity of the representation of fluoridation research, in particular that part that is unpublished". 



> Please, CAREFULLY read it again, at the level that any semi-competent scientist would, then you would not continuously make such elementary mistakes.




I also pointed out that; _"Also since Qld has significant immigration from the southern states, there is also no consideration for that in the ARCPOH child dental health surveys."_ 

There are too many variables that are not considered in that research to even contemplate a simple juggling of data like you did as a plausible mitigation. Your assumption is flawed because it doesn't take into account the different states in fig 14 that the research ultimately defines the summary in.

My original comment stands... "_by your criteria, your opinion here is no more valid than that which you criticize."_



> I also note how you have absolutely no comment, apart from denial about the extremely well presented, clear evidence in the graphs which the link refers to, and you are apparently so familiar with.




Oh yes it's extremely well presented...BUT, I'm not interested in nice presentation. I'm after quality and relevant substance... so I'll highlight this time what's important so you get it. 
_...*the most pertenant issue is the frequency of that term efficacy (the ability to produce a desired or intended result)* the pro fluoridation lobby like to throw around, that is too often confused with the holostic (economic) efficiency of fluoridation._

_The other significant point is that* both reports are reports are essentially done by the same people from the same data*... and doesn't change anything about the questions I'm trying to get you to answer about the holistic economics of fluoridation, the degree and prevelance of fluorosis and your latest offering to side step the previous issues... the impact of Vit D in this research._
​Also, did you forget;
_*You introduced Vit D into the debate, where is it considered and allowed for in the fluioridation research?* _​_Page, paragraph or a snip would be good._


----------



## medicowallet (6 April 2011)

I'll once again refrain from posting anymore with you Whiskers.

you have ZERO credibility, so one last attempt to make you actually think for yourself rather than regurgitate tainted information from propaganda rich sites, awash with unpublished, poorly researched and executed data of extremely questionable nature.

firstly you deny that you highlighted the fact that queensland teeth erupt 2 years earlier and that the explanation is due to lack of fluoridation. You are clearly in denial, deluded and immature in this argument.

Then you support it with


Whiskers said:


> The obvious question is why, and the apparent answer is that it has a significant impact on the findings of their research and major sponser, Colgate, who has been a close associate with ALCOA from the initiation of fluoridation. Adgenda? Terms of reference of research?






On one hand you want me to explain my personal theory and on the other hand dismiss it. I find that laughable.

but to give you a starting point to understand human anatomy and physiology, I shall refer you to some medical references in relation to it.

1. Guyton and Hall
2. Ganong medical physiology
3. Berne and Levy.
4. Harrison's principles of internal medicine.

I will also provide an interesting link which I found with a 20 second google, and by using the knowledge I have afforded you regarding increasing levels of vitamin D deficiency in Australia, it might help you actually think about Vitamin D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2850297


I also note how you once again do not pay any attention to the FACTS as published.

So, I ask AGAIN.

*where is the published rebuttal against the evidence I put forward or where is a published study disproving the information contained in it*. Scuttle my argument if you can.

You also cannot think logically.

As Vit D actually IMPROVES tooth mineralisation AND speeds eruptions, then logically, it should make the effects of fluoridation look WORSE, when in fact the people with fluoridated water CLEARLY have improved dental health. I look forward to your ignorance of this point.


Fluoridation is an extremely simple concept, supported by published, peer reviewed data, supported by a quality systematic review, which you will not acknowledge at all.

There is a massive difference between you and the likes of myself and Bill.

We use published, peer reviewed data of high quality.

You use unpublished, non-peer reviewed data featured on anti-fluoridation websites.

You are rightly laughed off by professionals, and hence I shall not waste any more of my time as I have garnered enough information in my research to allow me to confidently support fluoridation in my dealings with colleagues and patients. Until such time as a study can be produced which says there is a negative benefit-cost analysis, your stance is pointless and irresponsible, and as a professional it would be unethical of me to consider such a flawed view as credible.

I do however thank you for providing me with some of the concerns that conspiracy theorists hold dear, as I now feel more comfortable in my ability to discuss such terms using logic to help address their beliefs.


----------



## Julia (6 April 2011)

Motorway, my comment was made in reference to osteoporosis, this having been raised in a previous post.

Therefore the 'bone building' medications referred to were those designed to reduce the progression of osteoporosis, eg biphosphonates.  (Fosamax Plus et al)
They have some Vit D added.
I did not comment on how much.

Pregnant women and their offspring are a completely different subject.

I have nothing further to say about this and certainly have no interest in engaging in any discussion about Vit D in pregnant women.


----------



## Whiskers (6 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> I'll once again refrain from posting anymore with you Whiskers.




Yeah, rightio... you'll be back. :




> So, I ask AGAIN.
> 
> *where is the published rebuttal against the evidence I put forward or where is a published study disproving the information contained in it*. Scuttle my argument if you can.




I already have a few posts back. As I explained because those links are essentially the same data by the same researchers_ as _ARCPOH, so it suffers from the same problem.

_*Often what is not said or present(ed) can say or pose more questions than answers.*_


_The ARCPOH child dental health surveys for example: _
_Data items are not collected uniformly across all states and territories._
_New South Wales are excluded due to a lack of representativeness of the sample._
*There are no formal sessions of calibration or instruction in diagnosis undertaken for the purpose of the survey, and there are no repeat examinations for the purpose of assessing inter- or intra-examiner reliability.*
_The data for the Child Dental Health Survey are derived from routine examinations of children enrolled in the school dental services. *Children not enrolled **with the school dental service are not represented in the sample.*_
_the estimates cannot be applied to children who are not enrolled in the school dental services. Consequently, the results do not represent the complete Australian child population._​
_There are some* variations among state and territory programs* with respect to priority age groups and the nature of services. As a consequence,* there are **variations in the extent of enrolment in school dental services*, with some jurisdictions serving more than 80% of primary school children and others serving lower percentages._​



> As Vit D actually IMPROVES tooth mineralisation AND speeds eruptions, then logically, it should make the effects of fluoridation look WORSE,




True



> when in fact the people with fluoridated water CLEARLY have improved dental health.




No, they don't!

The logic is in the fact that we were comparing caries between Qld and the other states. 

Show me where your fig 14 compares Qld to the other states . It doesn't! You are just juggling some data in the Aus collective age groups. That says nothing about Qld.

What delayed eruptions in the south shows in an artifically incorrect high number of missing deciduous teeth (m) in the ARCPOH data in Qld comparable to same age groups in southern states, simply because their permenant teeth erupted earlier.

Conversely, because Qld kids have more permenant teeth for the same age group of southern kids, the way the data is presented implies that the Qld kids lost their decidious teeth earlier to decay. (Refer to item 3 above)

This is one of the main lines that Anna Bligh continually bleated for the fluoridation case accompanied by the chart below, claiming that Qld had higher DMFT in 12 yo's. 

But if in fact the southern states had delayed eruption of permenant teeth, that chart shows a distorted picture, implying that 12 yo southern kids had healthier permenant teeth simply because they had less permanent teeth to be affected as DMFT as their Qld counterparts.


----------



## medicowallet (6 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> What delayed eruptions in the south shows in an artifically incorrect high number of missing deciduous teeth (m) in the ARCPOH data in Qld comparable to same age groups in southern states, simply because their permenant teeth erupted earlier.
> 
> Conversely, because Qld kids have more permenant teeth for the same age group of southern kids, the way the data is presented implies that the Qld kids lost their decidious teeth earlier to decay. (Refer to item 3 above)




Then how come across the DMFT there is also an improvement in fluoridated age groups in the same age groups lol... don't you understand this? 


Also, care to read the report, they make an allowance for loss of deciduous teeth by natural causes. Also it is in the definition of dmft you useless under educated denial


----------



## Whiskers (6 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Then how come across the DMFT there is also an improvement in fluoridated age groups in the same age groups lol... don't you understand this?




I think you are trying to use a double negative to try to make a positive, logic. 

The southern states are being used as the 'standard' in this fluoridation research. So what ever they are ther are. The whole point of this Qld earlier eruption data is to show how Qld statistics are distorted.

The issue of why, ie the effect of fluoride and or other nutritional issues is the point of the need for better research and data, not for you to try to fudge that fig 14 data to guesstimate some allowance. 

*Instead of just trying to brow beat us into believing you, post up the charts with your workings and rationale for all to scrutinize.*



> Also, care to read the report, they make an allowance for loss of deciduous teeth by natural causes. Also it is in the definition of dmft you useless under educated denial




Again,* I want page, paragraph or better still a snip of the section*, because you guys have a poor history of quoting comments accurately, acknowledging the qualifications buried in the research, let alone interpreting those limitations and qualifications.


----------



## Billyb (6 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> What delayed eruptions in the south shows in an artifically incorrect high number of missing deciduous teeth (m) in the ARCPOH data in Qld comparable to same age groups in southern states, simply because their permenant teeth erupted earlier.




What a joke!! I WORK in the school dental service and therefore I am a contributor to that data. We do not mark a deciduous tooth as missing if the permanent tooth is there. I love how you just make any crap up to try and convince the masses. It doesn't work on logical people though.




medicowallet said:


> Then how come across the DMFT there is also an improvement in fluoridated age groups in the same age groups lol... don't you understand this?




I think he has very selective understanding...he understands propaganda and crap very well but understands facts and science very poorly... 



Whiskers said:


> I think you are trying to use a double negative to try to make a positive, logic.




OH. MY. GOD. Are you serious? IT SHOWS <0.3PPM (basically UNFLUORIDATED) vs >0.7PPM (basically FLUORIDATED). In the SAME age group 0.7ppm has less decay than 0.3PPM!!! Don’t you get it???? Feels like talking to a brick wall. 

As medicowallet said, you have zero credibility and you are starting to look like you are going into negative credibility.

This guy is a joke.
It’s still fun to read this thread though.


----------



## Whiskers (7 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> What a joke!! I WORK in the school dental service and therefore I am a contributor to that data.




Yeeeah... that's what worries me!



> We do not mark a deciduous tooth as missing if the permanent tooth is there.




I didn't say you do. what I said was:
_What delayed eruptions in the south shows in an artifically incorrect high number of missing deciduous teeth (m) in the ARCPOH data in Qld comparable to same age groups in southern states, simply because their permenant teeth erupted earlier._
​_...meaning in the context of the graph for 12 yo Qld children that the Qld pro fluoridation lobby favored, and Vit D or any other tooth rate eruption factors, is that you are comparing apples with oranges... *you are not comparing children of the same teeth age*._



> OH. MY. GOD. Are you serious? IT SHOWS <0.3PPM *(basically* UNFLUORIDATED) vs >0.7PPM (*basically* FLUORIDATED). In the SAME age group 0.7ppm has less decay than 0.3PPM!!! Don’t you get it???? Feels like talking to a brick wall.




Firstly you are at all those (basically) assumptions again that do not take into account the actual teeth age, dental (lack of) services in the outback, nor any gene/race factors.

Now, you pro fluoride 'professionals' seem very lacking in the ability to post charts and diagrams with analysis to support your arguement. You tend to blah, I'm a professional BELIEVE ME! 

So I've posted the chart 15 which relates to Permenant teeth. All you have to tell me is which column you want to move or compare to what and the rationale for it.

To start with tell me what you make of the blue circle and the spread between the two lines on the other chart.


----------



## medicowallet (7 April 2011)

Why have you not posted deciduous teeth?

What is your reason for the 10 year old difference?


I also like your blue line fit. Can you think of anything any more biased than what you percieve to be a trend. Note the magnitude of filled teeth whiskers.


----------



## motorway (7 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Motorway, my comment was made in reference to osteoporosis, this having been raised in a previous post.
> 
> Therefore the 'bone building' medications referred to were those designed to reduce the progression of osteoporosis, eg biphosphonates.  (Fosamax Plus et al)
> They have some Vit D added.
> ...




OK so you point is ?

Women do not have to worry about vitamin D because they can take Fosamax _AFTER_ They are diagnosed with Osteoporosis ?  

OK I know You do not mean that 

But I still do not see your point.

My point is that Vitamin D is maybe as important for Dental Health as Fluoride.
I would put forward eg the reported Dental Health of Aborigines at first contact.

 Fluoride does not seem to be  otherwise considered an essential trace mineral .

eg like Zinc , Selenium ,  Boron , Vanadium etc 



> Fluoride
> 
> Fluorine occurs naturally as the negatively charged ion, fluoride (F-). Fluoride is considered a trace element because only small amounts are present in the body (about 2.6 grams in adults), and because the daily requirement for maintaining dental health is only a few milligrams a day.
> 
> ...




http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/fluoride/

Motorway


----------



## Billyb (7 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Now, you pro fluoride 'professionals' seem very lacking in the ability to post charts and diagrams with analysis to support your arguement.




Yes, we tend to rely on research, not just pretty diagrams. Because we are capable enough to understand research, so we may as well use it in forming our opinions instead of just using propaganda, hearsay, news articles, pretty pictures, and biased stuff.



Whiskers said:


> To start with tell me what you make of the spread between the two lines on the other chart.



The lines you drew represent gradients, i.e rates of change of missing teeth (if you straighten them). Refer to Maths 101 for more info. The gradient in the blue line is greater than the lower line. This means the rate of losing teeth is greater in non-fluoridated towns (blue line) than in fluoridated towns  …surprise surprise!!

It’s all very simple whiskers. That’s the beauty of these graphs. Problem with you is you read into it too much and try to come up with fancy anti-fluoridist reasons to post up here which never make any sense anyway.


Whiskers said:


> To start with tell me what you make of the blue circle.



 Could be due to any number of reasons (including statistical variation) if you are referring to it in isolation. Refer to statistics 101. But tell us your reasons for it.


----------



## Whiskers (7 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Why have you not posted deciduous teeth?




I'll post deciduous teeth soon, but can you just try to deal with one issue at a time instead of avoiding reasonable explanations and changing the subject all the time.

We are on the subject of explaining the probable misrepresentation in that 12 yo Permanent teeth graph that Bligh used in the Qld pro fluoridation campaign... remember.



Billyb said:


> Yes, we tend to rely on research, not just pretty diagrams.




Oh, but you (pro fluoride lobby) did rely on a pretty diagram, that 12 yo graph comparing Qld against the rest of Aus, without NSW btw.



> Because we are capable enough to understand research,




Gees given your record here so far on misrepresenting clearly heavily qualified data as definitive and your inability to read legal documents, I doubt it.



> Originally Posted by *medicowallet*
> 
> 
> I also like your blue line fit. Can you think of anything any more biased than what you perceive to be a trend. Note the magnitude of filled teeth whiskers.




What... so Anna Bligh can draw a trend line chart from the data but when I simply join the dots of the columns to make a line chart like Bligh did, you call me biased! 



> Originally Posted by *Billyb*
> 
> 
> The lines you drew represent gradients, i.e rates of change of missing teeth




No Billy, look closely and pay attention... it's the trend line of "decayed" teeth.



> (if you straighten them).




*What the hell do you want to straighten them for*!?

We are talking about the probable difference in the age of permanent tooth eruption at different age groups.* Straightening the line would corrupt the data*.



> The gradient in the blue line is greater than the lower line. This means the rate of losing teeth is greater in non-fluoridated towns (blue line) than in fluoridated towns …surprise surprise!!




No billy, it represents the trend line of decay... the permanent teeth have to decay before they are filled and or later removed. Geesus mate, for a so called professional you get plenty of elementary stuff wrong.

But the first thing to notice in the context of that 12 yo trend line chart that Anna Bligh flashed around to try to justify fluoridation, is that 12 yo is the start of the widest spread between the aqua and heavy black line. It also correlates with the blue and thin black line. 

It wouldn't have been near as dramatic in misrepresenting the true data if she chose 10 or 11 yo, would it! 

But even by medicowallets suggestion that Qld teeth erupt earlier due to Vit D, it also supports the data that Fluoridated areas in the south caused delayed eruption. 

If that difference in eruption is two years, assuming all the non/low fluoridated areas were Qld (which they are not) by moving the non fluoridated (odd no's) to the right two columns it makes the total DMFT better than fluoridated areas for the same teeth age... even if you only move across one column (year) the difference is substantially reduced.

Additionally, since this is a national tally chart of age groups and there are substantial rural non fluoridated areas in the NT and Northern WA, especially neglected aboriginal communities you would be probably closer to the truth if you attributed about 3/4 of the non/low fluoridated areas to Qld and the other 1/4 to neglected dental (and public health generally) in rural NT and WA.

So even if you only allow one year for the delay in eruption and slice 1/4 off the non/low fluoridated columns and assume the balance is Qld, it makes the fluoridation argument look pretty sick for Qld.



> Originally Posted by *medicowallet*
> 
> 
> What is your reason for the 10 year old difference?




It (blue circle) correlates with your theory of early eruption of Qld, NT and rural north WA teeth as well as _Queenslanders For Safe Water on behalf of Fluoride Action Network Australia Inc_ finding_._



> Originally Posted by *Billyb*
> 
> 
> Could be due to any number of reasons (including statistical variation) if you are referring to it in isolation. Refer to statistics 101. But tell us your reasons for it.




Oh yeah, including statistical variation. We should remember the Child Dental Survey is also qualified by a weighting factor, their guesstimate for a number of social and environmental factors... it's a bit like their version of preferential voting ie they give more weight to people in some areas over others... but their detail is not spelt out.

But, regardless it signifies a significant period of missing permanent teeth that can best be explained by their deciduous (baby) teeth falling out and waiting for the permanent teeth to come through.


----------



## medicowallet (7 April 2011)

Whiskers, your intent is admirable, but you do realise your trend lines (apart from the top one) are meaningless.

People move from one category to another, eg a decayed tooth in a particular time, will likely move to a filled tooth.

So your mid column trend lines are absolutely meaningless. The top line (indicating a total burden) showing a clear benefit to fluoridation is the one that can easily be interpreted.


----------



## Whiskers (8 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> People move from one category to another, eg a decayed tooth in a particular time, will likely move to a filled tooth.




Yes, I pointed that progression out in the post for billy. 

But the data is collected at one point in time and the point of hightlighting the lower, thin black line and blue line is to highlight the rate of progression. 



> So your mid column trend lines are absolutely meaningless.




Oh no the're not. Think about statistical analysis a bit more. There are legitimate questions and even conclusions that can be drawn from them.



> The top line (indicating a total burden) showing a clear benefit to fluoridation is the one that can easily be interpreted.




Sooo... are you walking away from your notion of Vit D delayed eruption now?


----------



## Whiskers (8 April 2011)

If you start from scratch with no knowledge of what the chart is about, the first thing you notice is the black lines are a smooth trend line.

Then you see the blue and aqua trend lines are bumpy. 

The obvious question is what is going on here to cause one set of trend lines to be smooth and the other to be bumpy.

Now start to consider that the age groups (tooth age as opposed to child age) in the < 0.3 (low/non fluoridated) is miss matched with the > 0.7 (fluoridated) columns and considering the qualifications and limitations of the research that created that data chart, not the least of which is that no checks were made to ensure that all dentist contributers were using the same criteria, plus the Vit D delayed eruption effect in southern fluoridated states and further delay by fluoride itself, then you can start to draw some logical conclusions about the accuracy of the original representation of the data.

Mull over that for awhile and carefully consider your rhetoric... before I produce the decidious (baby) teeth chart...


----------



## Billyb (8 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> No billy, it represents the trend line of decay...



I know this is a stock forum and stock technicians love their trend lines, but in statistics a trend line represents a STRAIGHT LINE through data often referring to rates of change of data. Refer to your High school maths textbooks. 
Also, the lines connect the 'missing' areas on the bars - it can easily be misinterpreted what you were trying to do. 



Whiskers said:


> It wouldn't have been near as dramatic in misrepresenting the true data if she chose 10 or 11 yo, would it!




Yes Whiskers, we all know politicians like to do these sorts of things and are generally untrustworthy and I wouldn't rate them much better than anti-fluoridists (well, slightly) in the way they are capable of misrepresenting facts and data. But I don't give a damn. I only care about hard, unbiased facts. I know you like to find bait to keep this thread going, but let's forget about Anna Bligh for the moment and stick to the facts. 



Whiskers said:


> But even by medicowallets suggestion that Qld teeth erupt earlier due to Vit D, it also supports the data that Fluoridated areas in the south caused delayed eruption.




Hey, guess what, too much corn flakes causes delayed eruption too! How do I know this? Because the Corn Flakes Action Network website told me they found corrupt data in ARCPOH to show this! Why do I need to see the published data when the Corn Flakes Action Network website told me?

Does this sound like anyone you know? (hint: you)
Getting back to reality: There’s no point talking about delayed eruption till you provide some research that studied this topic and made that conclusion.  Same with Vit D.



Whiskers said:


> But, regardless it signifies a significant period of missing permanent teeth that can best be explained by their deciduous (baby) teeth falling out and waiting for the permanent teeth to come through.




yes "Dr Wiskers', I appreciate your opinion based on your clinical and pediatric knowledge/experience and your education in dentistry. Oh wait, you don't have any of those things, no wonder what you're saying sounds like horse**** to me.
It's a nice try whiskers but all you're doing is winging it and making crap up without any evidence OR clinical experience for what you’re saying.


Whiskers said:


> Sooo... are you walking away from your notion of Vit D delayed eruption now?




You just like to twist anything anyone says and you like to sick to it like honey don’t you. I tend to remember him conceding that it is only his theory that QLD data may be caused by this. NOT FORGETTING the most important thing.

*NO RESEARCH YET THAT SHOWS DELAYED ERUPTION DUE TO FLURIDE IN THE WATER, JUST SOME SILLY EMAIL FROM THE “FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK” to 'DR WHISKERS". Perhaps we should stop assuming it’s true.*

Sorry for the long post, too much BS to sift through and reply to. You have way too much time to be able to come up with so many BS explanations in data. If you look at graphs hard enough you might see some unicorns and lepricorns too!


----------



## Billyb (8 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Now start to consider that the age groups (tooth age as opposed to child age) in the < 0.3 (low/non fluoridated) is miss matched with the > 0.7 (fluoridated) columns and considering the qualifications and limitations of the research that created that data chart, not the least of which is that no checks were made to ensure that all dentist contributers were using the same criteria, plus the Vit D delayed eruption effect in southern fluoridated states and further delay by fluoride itself, then you can start to draw some logical conclusions about the accuracy of the original representation of the data.




I find it hilarious that you spend so much time drawing trend lines and discussing the data in these charts to back up your deluded view whilst all the while telling us the data is unreliable. *If you think it's unreliable then why are you using it so much. Duh, if you think its crap data, don't use it.*


----------



## Whiskers (8 April 2011)

I'm sorry to see you so rattled and resorting to nonsensical garbage, Billy.

'Mull over it all a bit more before I put up the deciduous (baby tooth) chart and point out some even more glaring inconsistencies.


----------



## medicowallet (8 April 2011)

Whiskers, how many times do we have to point out to you that you are not able to look at the data in the way you do.

1. I proposed a theory as to why Vit D deficiency would delay tooth eruption. But you also must then think that people with increased VitD would have improved mineralisation and that would have a favourable outcome.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  

Until one of us shows some data on this, then it is irrelevant and void, like I pointed out in a previous post.

2. You have some trouble understanding statistics. It does not matter that the data was collected at a particular age, the progression is still able to be decided from this.

ie if non-fluoridated progress to filled teeth, this potentially makes less decayed teeth, so you are indeed putting a positive spin on a negative trend.

you cannot make it look good, without thinking as to why it is trending down. Decay rarely goes away by itself (however good fluoride treatment on areas of minimal decay can do this)

3. Your reliance on tooth eruption to try to derive a positive from a graph which clearly shows that fluoridation is beneficial has a significant and serious flaw.

If you believe that delayed tooth eruption has a positive benefit in one category, it MUST therefore have a negative connection in the other category. Please refer to previous posts if you cannot understand this.

If you look at dmft and DMFT in BOTH graphs, fluoridation shows benefit at all age groups.


Whiskers, your so-called arguments are looking weaker and more desperate on many levels. I think that you need to find another cause to go against the consensus with.

Next you will be saying the earth is flat, carbon dioxide drives dangerous warming, the Cowboys will win the final this year, and that Cameron White deserves to be in the Australian cricket team.


----------



## Whiskers (8 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Whiskers, how many times do we have to point out to you that you are not able to look at the data in the way you do.




Data is data and when it has an impact on peoples rights and responsibilities it deserves to be interpreted with integrity.



> 1. I proposed a theory as to why Vit D deficiency would delay tooth eruption. But you also must then think that people with increased VitD would have improved mineralisation and that would have a favourable outcome. You can't have your cake and eat it too.




Oh, I'm not making any such assumptions in the chart about any improved mineralisation from Vit D or not, and for the purpose of analysing the current data for the correct teeth age, I don't need to. You only have to recognise that the teeth age (whether from Vit D or Fluoride itself) is a miss match with the child age to see that the data is misleading. 



> 2. It does not matter that the data was collected at a particular age, the progression is still able to be decided from this.




It matters to the whole integrity of the data and chart if you have a significant miss match between the teeth age and child age in different areas. The bar chart and trend line would stach up completely differently. I'll see if I can modify the chart to demonstrate.



> 3. Your reliance on tooth eruption to try to derive a positive from a graph which clearly shows that fluoridation is beneficial has a significant and serious flaw.
> 
> If you believe that delayed tooth eruption has a positive benefit in one category, it MUST therefore have a negative connection in the other category.




It has... in the way it is charted matching child age, it wrongly suggests that DMFT is substantially worse in unfluoridated areas, ie you guys impling Qld.

But if you move the unfluoridated columns across to the right even one year or the fluoridated one to the right (and without allowing for their weighting factor for Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas or gene/race), the data is not near as compelling in favor of fluoridation... but if the eruption delay is closer to two years, then you have to move across two years to match teeth age, and the fluoridation case is sunk.


----------



## motorway (8 April 2011)

> 1. I proposed a theory as to why Vit D deficiency would delay tooth eruption. But you also must then think that people with increased VitD would have improved mineralisation and that would have a favourable outcome. You can't have your cake and eat it too.




Certainly Vitamin D is a factor in Dental Health
So must be a Factor to consider
In looking at the data and studies,,


Mother's Vitamin D Status During Pregnancy Will Affect Her Baby's Dental Health



> Low maternal vitamin D levels during pregnancy may affect primary tooth calcification, leading to enamel defects, which are a risk factor for early-childhood tooth decay.




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080704104315.htm







> The Charleston team is running another trial in breastfeeding women who are taking 6,400 IUs per day, a dose 16 times the amount of vitamin D recommended in the UK. This high dose enables women to make breast milk which has sufficient vitamin D for the baby’s needs, 400 IUs per day.




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6868729.ece

http://scienceblog.com/33358/researchers-recommend-pregnant-women-take-4000-iu-vitamin-d-a-day/





http://scienceblog.com/37260/chew-on-this-6-dental-myths-debunked/

Myth 1: The consequences of poor oral health are restricted to the mouth

Expectant mothers may not know that what they eat affects the tooth development of the fetus. Poor nutrition during pregnancy may make the unborn child more likely to have tooth decay later in life. “Between the ages of 14 weeks to four months, deficiencies in calcium, vitamin D, vitamin A, protein and calories could result in oral defects,” says Carole Palmer, EdD, RD, professor at TUSDM and head of the division of nutrition and oral health promotion in the department of public health and community service. Some data also suggest that lack of adequate vitamin B6 or B12 could be a risk factor for cleft lip and cleft palate formation.

http://scienceblog.com/37260/chew-on-this-6-dental-myths-debunked/



Maternal vitamin D status during pregnancy and childhood bone mass at age 9 years: a longitudinal study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16399151



> NTERPRETATION: Maternal vitamin D insufficiency is common during pregnancy and is associated with reduced bone-mineral accrual in the offspring during childhood; this association is mediated partly through the concentration of umbilical venous calcium. Vitamin D supplementation of pregnant women, especially during winter months, could lead to longlasting reductions in the risk of osteoporotic fracture in their offspring.




Motorway


----------



## medicowallet (8 April 2011)

See, the problem is Whiskers, that you do not understand.

Moving the bars to the side is not really helping is it.

because, you are introducing your own bias, because to move the bar in DMFT affects the ballpark for dmft.

Do you not get this simple point?

So if you are using bar movement to improve a position in DMFT, you are killing your position in dmft / vice versa.


I am sorry that you cannot understand this simple concept.

You also must understand that there is an effect of certain places having eruption changes yes, but it is averaged over the graph, so that the potential queensland effect is not fully represented, it is represented by the proportion of queenslanders in the study.

Do you have the evidence of what magnitude affected the study to make such caims, or are YOU being biased.


----------



## Billyb (8 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Whiskers, your so-called arguments are looking weaker and more desperate on many levels. I think that you need to find another cause to go against the consensus with.
> 
> Next you will be saying the earth is flat, carbon dioxide drives dangerous warming, the Cowboys will win the final this year, and that Cameron White deserves to be in the Australian cricket team.




Took the words right out of my mouth. lol.  ‘clutching at straws’ I think is the saying!

I suppose he needs to make SOME stories up to keep this delusion going. This thread reminds me of that movie, Memento, where at the end we find out the main character was making stories up purely so that he can keep his mission and purpose alive.
Well Whiskers, don’t worry, you’re doing a great job at that.


----------



## DB008 (8 April 2011)

PubMed U.S. National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health

*Associations between fluorosis of permanent incisors and fluoride intake from infant formula, other dietary sources and dentifrice during early childhood.*



> Abstract
> 
> OBJECTIVES: The authors describe associations between dental fluorosis and fluoride intakes, with an emphasis on intake from fluoride in infant formula.
> 
> ...




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20884921?dopt=Abstract

Of course medicowallet and BillyB will discredit this source....


----------



## DB008 (8 April 2011)

*Too much fluoride is bad for your teeth, says U.S. study*




> ATLANTA ”” U.S. government officials lowered recommended limits for fluoride in water Friday, saying some children may be getting tooth damage from too much.
> 
> Fluoride is added to the water supply in most U.S. communities because it can prevent and repair tooth decay. But health and environment officials said Americans get fluoride in so many sources now, such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, that it makes sense to lower levels.
> 
> The Environmental Protection Agency and Health and Human Services Department lowered their recommended levels to 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water – the lower limit of the current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams.




More on the link below...

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/917810--u-s-says-fluoride-in-water-causing-spots-on-kids-teeth


----------



## Whiskers (8 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> See, the problem is Whiskers, that you do not understand.
> 
> Moving the bars to the side is not really helping is it.
> 
> ...




Aaah... but it is your bias that delayed eruption occurs in the southern states because of lack iof Vit D. I just happen to agree and further that fluoride increases that delay.

Firstly, this data set relates entirely to DMFT (permanent teeth). Don't worry about the analysis effect on dmft (baby teeth) data. When the same rationale and shift is applied there it will marry in. 



> You also must understand that there is an effect of certain places having eruption changes yes, but it is averaged over the graph, so that the potential queensland effect is not fully represented, it is represented by the proportion of queenslanders in the study.
> 
> Do you have the evidence of what magnitude affected the study to make such caims, or are YOU being biased.




ARCPOH has the Significant Caries Index (SiC) data for the worst 30% dmft as well as the SiC10 (worst 10%) in national age groups... BUT have failed to produce it in State, postcode or Local Council sub sets. We can only wonder why, but I'm sure when someone can get that raw data and plot it up by postcode or Local Council, we will see an entirely different picture as with the tooth eruption rate. It will give a good parallel indication for DMFT.

Meanwhile this is the DMFT chart adjusted for one year and two year delay of eruption. 

What stands out is whatever the precise number is for the rate of eruption delay,(that ARCPOH don't allow for) it makes a significant difference on the complexion of the ARCPOH child age data.


----------



## Atlas79 (12 April 2011)

Isn't it nice to see the mainstream & "conspiracy" nuts coming together over one issue, at least. Well, it's a start.

Just in case you thought the fluoride they're putting in our water/food was pharmaceutical grade - which would still be bad enough - it is in fact an industrial waste product from making fertilizer. Or it's imported from China, in which case they don't exactly know where it comes from nor what is in it. As shown in this very good (Australian) documentary:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SMKemanUQ8&feature=player_embedded

I think it's time for the law suits to begin. And maybe even the arrests.

Side note: Hitler was the first to use fluoride in water, which he did in concentration camps to keep the prisoners docile.

Our lawmakers should be taken down on this one issue alone. It is past the time for polite letters to MPs and past time for sponsored Member's Bills. Some of you are smart, well connected people. Your kids are bathing in and drinking this ****, and bottled water is no escape. It's time to put some wheels in motion.


----------



## DB008 (12 April 2011)

Atlas, please see Page 18, Post #350

I have placed all 9 parts up for viewing.

It has also been bought to the attention of posters in this thread that Incitec Pivot's (asx:IPL) waste product from a Geelong Fertilizer plant is used for Fluoridation of our drinking water and has not been treated for human consumption, let alone actually stated what type of Fluoride it is and what other chemicals is contains...

Not to worry, keep drinking a industrial waste product everybody, it's good for your teeth...


----------



## OzWaveGuy (12 April 2011)

DB008 said:


> ....It has also been bought to the attention of posters in this thread that Incitec Pivot's (asx:IPL) waste product from a Geelong Fertilizer plant is used for Fluoridation of our drinking water and has not been treated for human consumption, let alone actually stated what type of Fluoride it is and what other chemicals is contains...
> 
> Not to worry, keep drinking a industrial waste product everybody, it's good for your teeth...




Indeed. I actually thought our fluoride was from China, but you're right...

Fluosilicic Acid (FSA or Hydrofluorosilicic Acid)
Fluosilicic Acid is an aqueous solution of 20% H2SiF6 used for the Fluoridation of drinking water. Incitec Pivot manufactures the product in Geelong and Portland, Victoria, and distributes it nationally.  Fluosilicic Acid is the most widely used fluoridation agent in Australia, and has several advantages over powdered fluoridation products, including the elimination of manual handling, dust control, and slurrification. The product is particularly suitable in mid sized to larger water treatment plants.​ 
Also..

http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert...-provide-flurosilicic-acid-for-region-s-water

The spokesman said fluoride was “a naturally occurring mineral” sourced from natural deposits in Victoria.​
Gotta love that spin...“a naturally occurring mineral”, hmmm a delicious nutrient, when if fact fluoride in water is called "contaminated" as is the case with arsenic and lead.

So when do I get my choice of being able to select whether I want fluoride in my water?


----------



## Atlas79 (12 April 2011)

Sorry for reposting the video, but for other newcomers to the thread, there's no harm. People need to see what is being done to us.



> So when do I get my choice of being able to select whether I want fluoride in my water?




You don't. Even if you got an effective filter, you need to bathe in fluoridated water which is absorbed through the skin. And the food you eat is grown on it.

To me this alone is clear enough evidence we have slipped into a state of tyranny in this country. It's time to push back - a MASSIVE law suit is called for. Every person who has consumed this poison is entitled to financial compensation. Merely voting people out isn't enough either, those in power who supported this action need to be *jailed*.


----------



## Billyb (12 April 2011)

Atlas79 said:


> Side note: Hitler was the first to use fluoride in water, which he did in concentration camps to keep the prisoners docile.




yeah yeah sure sure I believe you.

Post evidence guys, don't be weak


----------



## derty (12 April 2011)

Atlas79 said:


> Side note: Hitler was the first to use fluoride in water, which he did in concentration camps to keep the prisoners docile.



It took 597 posts but Godwin's Law has been evoked. The conspiracy theorists automatically lose. End of thread.


----------



## medicowallet (12 April 2011)

Atlas79 said:


> Isn't it nice to see the mainstream & "conspiracy" nuts coming together over one issue, at least. Well, it's a start.
> 
> Just in case you thought the fluoride they're putting in our water/food was pharmaceutical grade - which would still be bad enough - it is in fact an industrial waste product from making fertilizer. Or it's imported from China, in which case they don't exactly know where it comes from nor what is in it. As shown in this very good (Australian) documentary:
> 
> ...





The person who made this is 20ish years old with no scientific background.

It is purely a propaganda piece by interest groups, and is a poor representation of conspiracy theories.


----------



## medicowallet (12 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Aaah... but it is your bias that delayed eruption occurs in the southern states because of lack iof Vit D. I just happen to agree and further that fluoride increases that delay.
> 
> Firstly, this data set relates entirely to DMFT (permanent teeth). Don't worry about the analysis effect on dmft (baby teeth) data. When the same rationale and shift is applied there it will marry in.
> 
> ...




it is so frustrating that you have a graph that shows that there is a clear benefit and you cannot believe it.

then you believe that moving DMFT graph to suit your purpose will mean that the dmft graph will also improve your argument, when in fact it makes it worse!!! 

I have tried to explain this to you, but you obviously cannot understand.


----------



## DB008 (12 April 2011)

derty said:


> It took 597 posts but Godwin's Law has been evoked. The conspiracy theorists automatically lose. End of thread.




I have never heard of "Godwin's Law" it until you mentioned it derty. But in no way, shape or form was l going to bring Hitler into this thread.


----------



## Whiskers (12 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> it is so frustrating that you have a graph that shows that there is a clear benefit and you cannot believe it.
> 
> then you believe that moving DMFT graph to suit your purpose will mean that the dmft graph will also improve your argument, when in fact it makes it worse!!!
> 
> I have tried to explain this to you, but you obviously cannot understand.




Nah... your purpose too... remember you introduced Vit D delayed eruption into the equation, albeit after a bit of goading. 


Don't worry about the dmft chart for the moment, I'm still coming to that... 

So, since Vit D is a factor that ARCPOH clearly didn't factor in for a comparable teeth age comparison, how long in your experience is a reasonable estimate for low(er) Vit D eruption delay in the south?


----------



## medicowallet (12 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Nah... your purpose too... remember you introduced Vit D delayed eruption into the equation, albeit after a bit of goading.
> 
> 
> Don't worry about the dmft chart for the moment, I'm still coming to that...
> ...




Can you please show me a study showing Vitamin D is a factor?

I guess you just believe any unsubstantiated claims you read on the internet?

I don't, as I said, it was a possibility, and something that since there is no evidence showing the magnitude of the effect, it is irrelevant.


Once again you change topic when your argument falls in a heap.

Your graph analysis is elementary and the errors are glaring, you have clearly lost the plot this time, and you are looking particularly desperate trying to dig your way out of the bottomless pit of your inexperience in analysing graphs.


----------



## Whiskers (12 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Can you please show me a study showing Vitamin D is a factor?
> 
> I guess you just believe any unsubstantiated claims you read on the internet?
> 
> I don't, as I said, it was a possibility, and something that since there is no evidence showing the magnitude of the effect, it is irrelevant.





This is what you said back on post # 572



medicowallet said:


> As Vit D actually IMPROVES tooth mineralisation AND speeds eruptions,




Sound pretty matter-of-fact to me.

So, how much were you thinking it speeds up eruptions then... before you started trying to back away from it?


----------



## DB008 (12 April 2011)

> Does Fluoridation Reduce Dental Decay?
> 
> A computer analysis of the data from the largest dental survey ever done -of nearly 40,000 school children - by the *U.S. National Institutes of Dental Research* revealed no correlation between tooth decay and fluoridation. In fact, many of the non-fluoridated cities had better tooth decay rates than fluoridated cities. The city with the lowest rate of tooth decay was not fluoridated. Of the three with the highest rate of decay, two were partially fluoridated.
> 
> ...




So why are we mass medicated?


----------



## medicowallet (12 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> This is what you said back on post # 572
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It is a known fact that when people start to lose an argument, they try to change topics at all costs.

however I shall answer your question, even if you don't have the fortitude to answer mine.

Yes Vitamin D does improve mineralisation (and as I have pointed out, this should actually favour queenslanders) and does influence eruptions (note I said influence, not necessarily speeds, because you can be deficient or have excess).

As to how much to quantify, well I for one, will not start making up figures, unlike the people you seem to believe.

THAT is why I said I cannot use it, as I have no published data to quantify it, do you?

Because it is actually you who wants to continue to go down the Vitamin D path, perhaps you can find this information in published studies.

Whiskers, how many times do I have to say that the Vitamin D argument, even though it is appropriate, cannot be used until someone has some published evidence, as I tire of your immaturity of expecting me to address this issue. Are you still in school or are you an adult?


----------



## medicowallet (12 April 2011)

DB008 said:


> So why are we mass medicated?




Hard to think that this is from the NICDR then isn't it DB008

http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/OralHealth/Topics/Fluoride/StatementWaterFluoridation.htm

link to
http://health.gov/environment/ReviewofFluoride/
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water


----------



## Atlas79 (12 April 2011)

DB008 said:


> I have never heard of "Godwin's Law" it until you mentioned it derty. But in no way, shape or form was l going to bring Hitler into this thread.




Stalin did it too.

Some of you seem to think this is a joke. Do you not drink or bathe in water? You're being poisoned. Not a concern?

As for the video, rather than address information presented, the shills attack the source of the video to discourage others from watching.

People this is a huge frigging wake up call.


----------



## medicowallet (13 April 2011)

Atlas79 said:


> Stalin did it too.
> 
> Some of you seem to think this is a joke. Do you not drink or bathe in water? You're being poisoned. Not a concern?
> 
> ...




How can this person make heads or tails of a subject they would have very little knowledge in.

In that light, the info in there could be poor, unpublished data which is wrong and sensational.

How can you actually believe it when there is far better quality, published, scientific data out there?

Perhaps a wake up call to the real world is warranted.


----------



## Whiskers (13 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Yes Vitamin D does improve mineralisation (and as I have pointed out, this should actually favour queenslanders) and does influence eruptions (*note I said influence, not necessarily speeds*, because you can be deficient or have excess).




Geesus mate, you are back peddling so fast you can't remember... or most likely desperately launching into personal(ity) attacks to try to gloss over what you said earlier.
*






 Originally Posted by medicowallet **

** from Post # 572*
*As Vit D actually IMPROVES tooth mineralisation AND speeds eruptions,*​Again, you said "AND", ie internet for shouting, an emphasis... that Vit D speeds eruptions.



> As to how much to quantify, well I for one, will not start making up figures, unlike the people you seem to believe.
> 
> THAT is why I said I cannot use it, as I have no published data to quantify it, do you?




Sooo... you can shout to emphasize Vit D speeds eruptions (albeit in response to being goaded into providing an alternative explanation to fluoride itself causing a delay)... BUT you now claim to have no data to support your very definite assertion that Vit D affects eruption of teeth.

*Humm... sooo, you can make assertions without any published data to quantify it*... 

Hey, wait a minute... that's what you are claiming the anti fluoridation people do and why they cannot be believed.



> Because it is actually you who wants to continue to go down the Vitamin D path, perhaps you can find this information in published studies.




Yeah, but if you are a Doctor and have your patient welfare at heart (rather than a biased interest in public health policy, ie compulsory fluoridation), then you should know where to find such data, or a ball park figure at least. 



> Whiskers, how many times do I have to say that the Vitamin D argument, even though it is appropriate, cannot be used until someone has some published evidence, as I tire of your immaturity of expecting me to address this issue. Are you still in school or are you an adult?




What does it matter if I am in school or not? It's a valid question to which you (in your bias) seem to not want to make more light of for fear of being counter-productive to your bias. Rather, the best you can do is induce more spin and personality attacks in an attempt to wriggle out of a corner you backed into.

*You claim to be a Doctor* (of medicine) but are quick to slam anyone who raises questions about the safety of fluoridation and the integrity of the research as conspiracy theorists, immature or whatever... but when you are goaded into *pronouncing forcefully that Vit D speeds eruption* (in Qld -unfluoridated)to try to counter the notion that fluoride causes causes eruption delay (in the south - fluoridated)... *YOU CANNOT PRODUCE THE DATA or RESEARCH!*

*Talk about hypocrisy!*

How about you make an effort to be a bit impartial and post up that data/research before someone else does?


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> The person who made this is 20ish years old with no scientific background.
> 
> It is purely a propaganda piece by interest groups, and is a poor representation of conspiracy theories.




Just like to point out that the doctors who were all for Thalidumide had scientific backgrounds. The scientists who set up the Fukushima disaster had scientific backgrounds. The dentists recommending fluoridation are doing so because they read it in text books written by richer dentists than them.


----------



## medicowallet (13 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Geesus mate, you are back peddling so fast you can't remember... or most likely desperately launching into personal(ity) attacks to try to gloss over what you said earlier.
> *
> 
> 
> ...




Nope, 

I was not backpeddling, merely stating facts.

If you were learned, you would understand that someone deficient in Vit D will benefit from more, but someone with adequate Vitamin D will not benefit.

You claim that I use Vitamin D as evidence, and I did state it could make a difference (yes vitamin d does improve mineralisation and speed eruption), but I cannot quantify this, AS I HAVE SAID ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS YOU FOOL.  What is wrong with this.

You and your high school straw man argument is pathetic and below me, son (yes I am frustrated in dealing with your blatant immaturity and incompetence, and I guess your high school teacher is too)


----------



## medicowallet (13 April 2011)

Atlas79 said:


> Just like to point out that the doctors who were all for Thalidumide had scientific backgrounds. The scientists who set up the Fukushima disaster had scientific backgrounds. The dentists recommending fluoridation are doing so because they read it in text books written by richer dentists than them.




Ok, 2 points

1. Let's stop progress for the sake of thalidomide (which is still used mind you)

2. Note that thalidomide was stopped. If they find evidence that fluoride's costs outweigh benefits, this precedent ensures it will be stopped too.

I would also like to point out that science and medicine has extended lifespans and improved morbidity exceptionally, so stop playing with words in an inappropriate context.


----------



## DB008 (13 April 2011)

http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2008Toronto/techprogram/abstract_105335.htm


> 2205 Fluoride and its effect on human intelligence.
> A systematic review
> 
> M. CONNETT, Fluoride Action Network, Cambridge, MA, USA, and H. LIMEBACK, University of Toronto, Canada
> ...






http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695947



> Fluoride and children's intelligence: a meta-analysis.
> 
> Tang QQ, Du J, Ma HH, Jiang SJ, Zhou XJ.
> 
> ...


----------



## Billyb (13 April 2011)

Whiskers;626189but when you are goaded into [B said:
			
		

> pronouncing forcefully that Vit D speeds eruption[/B] (in Qld -unfluoridated)to try to counter the notion that fluoride causes causes eruption delay (in the south - fluoridated)... *YOU CANNOT PRODUCE THE DATA or RESEARCH!*




You really are thick. At first I though you were just trying to keep thsi pointless debate going but it seems you really don't understand..

that's not meant to be a personal attack or anything, it's more an observation.

Medicowallet said this: 



medicowallet said:


> Whiskers, how many times do I have to say that the Vitamin D argument, even though it is appropriate, cannot be used until someone has some published evidence, as I tire of your immaturity of expecting me to address this issue. Are you still in school or are you an adult?




Keep reading it and reading it, until you absorb it and understand what it says. Keep trying, it'll come to you eventually. Then come back and post (actually, better if you dont )


----------



## Whiskers (14 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Nope,
> 
> I was not backpeddling, merely stating facts.
> 
> ...




Oooh, temper, temper... sticks and stones may break my bones, but name will never hurt me. 

Sooo... you can make a statement (in an attempt) to rebut what I post without supporting peer reviewed evidence. 

But, according to your own standard if I post anything without peer reviewed evidence, (acceptable to you that is), it's nothing but conspiracy theory, crap science etc etc.

YOU, have not posted a single piece of evidence that Vit D affects tooth eruption (others have, but you have not).

Similarly,[medicowallet Post # 575] "Also, care to read the report, they make an allowance for loss of deciduous teeth by natural causes. Also it is in the definition of dmft you useless under educated denial " I asked for "_Again,* I want page, paragraph or better still a snip of the section*, because you guys have a poor history of quoting comments accurately, acknowledging the qualifications buried in the research, let alone interpreting those limitations and qualifications"_... and alas, no proof.

And again, just as you keep bleating that the evidence is clear that fluoridation is an efficient (as distinct from efficacy) public health measure, without posting any independent holistic economic reports.

This demonstrates your complete unwillingness to support your so called professionalism to Analise the so called evidence from an impartial objective. 



> You and your high school straw man argument is pathetic and below me, son (yes I am frustrated in dealing with your blatant immaturity and incompetence, and I guess your high school teacher is too)




Just for the record (again in this thread) I completed my Business degree majoring in Accounting and Law ages ago... and just to pip you off a bit more, graduating in the top 15% and invited to join the Golden Key International Honour Society. 

Probably my biggest achievement, as I recall, was for one assignment that amounted for most of the term marks where I was initially marked fail (F)... but upon appealing on the grounds that the question didn't strictly ask for what the lecturer thought, but something different to which I addressed... and I was consequently awarded a High Distinction (HD). I often appeal things with a high degree of success.

The point of my reluctantly blowing my own horn is that you are not as smart as you think you are with words (spin)... and I loovve picking or p!**!ng Smart @!ses off. :

C'mon medicowallet, put up or shut up.


----------



## medicowallet (14 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> But, according to your own standard if I post anything without peer reviewed evidence, (acceptable to you that is), it's nothing but conspiracy theory, crap science etc etc.
> 
> YOU, have not posted a single piece of evidence that Vit D affects tooth eruption (others have, but you have not).
> 
> ...




1. You don't have to post evidence if it is a known fact, I just cannot QUANTIFY it. Do you understand the concept or is it beyond your scope?

2. The evidence is around the first third. IF I get time I will point it out to you, I just assumed you knew this, since you are apparently proficient with respect to the document.

3. Again, another person who is not involved anywhere near the coalface, with extreme unwaivering views.

4. I was invited to join Golden key as well, in medicine. Medicine has an extremely high cut off and is crazily competitive too.  I would also like to let you know how well I performed within my cohort (but like to remain anonymous), quite impressive really, but let's let big swinging dicks rest a bit.


----------



## Whiskers (14 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> You really are thick. At first I though you were just trying to keep this pointless debate going but it seems you really don't understand..
> 
> that's not meant to be a personal attack or anything, it's more an observation.
> 
> ...




Ooh... do I hear an echo, or is it a chorus... or maybe it's a Blind Man's Bluff!

I guess that's what you do when you close your eyes and mind to anything that challenges your bias. 

Now Billy, be a good fella and pick up where you detoured off track, and go through the physiological process of fluoride and fluoridation on the teeth and other organs... and post up those fluorosis reference pictures that you use to categorize fluorosis.


----------



## Whiskers (14 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> 1. *You don't have to post evidence if it is a known fact*, I just cannot QUANTIFY it. Do you understand the concept or is it beyond your scope?




Oh yes you do... according to your own rules.



> 2. The evidence is around the first third. IF I get time I will point it out to you, I just assumed you knew this, since you are apparently proficient with respect to the document.




Oh, I know what I know... but I'm sceptical about what you think you know... or at least what your bias wants us to believe.



> 4. I was invited to join Golden key as well, in medicine. Medicine has an extremely high cut off and is crazily competitive too. I would also like to let you know how well I performed within my cohort (but like to remain anonymous), quite impressive really, but *let's let big swinging dicks rest a bit*.




Ooh... you ARE a skite.


----------



## medicowallet (14 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Probably my biggest achievement, as I recall, was for one assignment that amounted for most of the term marks where I was initially marked fail (F)... but upon appealing on the grounds that the question didn't strictly ask for what the lecturer thought, but something different to which I addressed... and I was consequently awarded a High Distinction (HD). I often appeal things with a high degree of success.




Nice to know that your biggest achievement is at an undergraduate level.

When you get older, I hope this changes.



Whiskers said:


> Oh yes you do... according to your own rules.




Seriously whiskers,

it is not groundbreaking research, it is common knowledge.

It would be like me having to provide research saying that blue and yellow paint, when mixed makes green.

eg we know that fluoride causes fluorosis, but you cannot Quantify it WITHOUT EVIDENCE.



If these posts didn't amuse me such, then I would feel nothing but pity for you.

Also, you have just proven to me what a joke your education was, as clearly you have no clue about many things including statistics, research and critical analysis.

I would dearly love to meet you in person one day, just to put a face to one who is so opinionated, yet so clueless.  This is why I assume that you are still in high school.


----------



## Billyb (14 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Just for the record (again in this thread) I completed my Business degree majoring in Accounting and Law ages ago...]




That explains a lot.

No wonder he has no clue about anything related to science.

Go and get some education in science buddy, then come back here and debate about it. You sound like a fool at the moment.


----------



## Calliope (14 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> That explains a lot.
> 
> No wonder he has no clue about anything related to science.
> 
> Go and get some education in science buddy, then come back here and debate about it. You sound like a fool at the moment.




Both you and medicowallet should know that you cannot debate with someone with Obsessive Compulsion Disorder.

Obsessions include;


> Fear of contamination from germs, dirt, poisons, and other physical and environmental substances
> Fear of harm from illness, accidents or death that may occur to oneself or to others. *This may include an excessive sense of responsibility for preventing this harm.*



 (My bolds)
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/.../obsessive_compulsive_disorder_explained?open


----------



## Julia (14 April 2011)

This thread has become quite unnecessarily personal and nasty.   For anyone to put down someone else's level of education, without any recognition of perhaps how hard that level of education may have been to come by due to the personal circumstances of that person, is rude, patronising and totally unnecessary.

And I would add that I have no idea about Whiskers' personal circumstances as regards his education or anything else.  I am simply making a general statement about the supercilious and unduly personal nature of the insulting remarks in this thread.

By all means criticise someone's argument, but surely you can do so in an objective and factual way without resorting to personal denigration.


----------



## medicowallet (14 April 2011)

Julia said:


> This thread has become quite unnecessarily personal and nasty.   For anyone to put down someone else's level of education, without any recognition of perhaps how hard that level of education may have been to come by due to the personal circumstances of that person, is rude, patronising and totally unnecessary.
> 
> And I would add that I have no idea about Whiskers' personal circumstances as regards his education or anything else.  I am simply making a general statement about the supercilious and unduly personal nature of the insulting remarks in this thread.
> 
> By all means criticise someone's argument, but surely you can do so in an objective and factual way without resorting to personal denigration.




Yeah, but he started it 

Seriously Julia, sometimes one needs to read all of the posts to understand the head banging that one needs to endure when dealing with a character such as Whiskers.

It is extremely frustrating when someone who has no motive except to inflame, keeps posting ridiculous, uninformed statements where people can read them. I am sorry for the thread, which has degraded, by Whisker's want, into a thread which continues to bring up old, disregarded topics, which I must defend.

If it means me pointing out their immaturity I will, if it then means that they try to gain authority in the argument by stating their qualifications in an extremely arrogant way, then I will point out the flaws in their understanding with due respect.

So, I understand your frustration, I feel it too, but I take offense that you clearly post this at myself and Billy, without reading Whisker's posts. 

PS There is a function that allows private messages.


----------



## trainspotter (14 April 2011)

But not when I argue with you OK !!!!!!


----------



## medicowallet (14 April 2011)

trainspotter said:


> But not when I argue with you OK !!!!!!
> 
> View attachment 42411
> View attachment 42412




Have had lots of arguments with you, which have remained quite civil and reasonable.

Will have many more no doubt


----------



## Whiskers (14 April 2011)

DB008 said:


> http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2008Toronto/techprogram/abstract_105335.htm
> 
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695947





> Fluoride and children's intelligence: a meta-analysis.
> 
> Tang QQ, Du J, Ma HH, Jiang SJ, Zhou XJ.
> 
> ...




That is of real concern Dannyboy.

I had read it before and am still doing some research as to why the US Public Health Authorities and even our own Health Authorities pay little or no attention to this.

For all the short comings of China's political regime, they seem to have a very impartial view and do produce a lot of research on the adverse effects of fluoride in all it's forms in their own country. I have to give them credit for that.


----------



## trainspotter (14 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Have had lots of arguments with you, which have remained quite civil and reasonable.
> 
> Will have many more no doubt




Engarde' ....... why thank you very much ....... touche' :


----------



## medicowallet (14 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> That is of real concern Dannyboy.
> 
> I had read it before and am still doing some research as to why the US Public Health Authorities and even our own Health Authorities pay little or no attention to this.
> 
> For all the short comings of China's political regime, they seem to have a very impartial view and do produce a lot of research on the adverse effects of fluoride in all it's forms in their own country. I have to give them credit for that.




Well there are a few reasons as to why

1. It is not proven
2. I have consumed fluoridated water for many years and it hasn't affected my iq 
3. You are accusing our administration of a conspiracy that China has exposed.


----------



## Julia (14 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Yeah, but he started it
> 
> Seriously Julia, sometimes one needs to read all of the posts to understand the head banging that one needs to endure when dealing with a character such as Whiskers.
> 
> ...



I am not commenting on the content of the discussion because I long ago lost interest in it, when it clearly became some sort of contest of oneupmanship.

I simply really dislike personal attacks by anyone on anyone else and believe you should be able to present your point of view without denigrating what you see as someone's inferior level of education compared with your own, about which we are left in no doubt.

If that is not possible, why can't you just agree to disagree, and move on.


----------



## medicowallet (14 April 2011)

Julia said:


> I am not commenting on the content of the discussion because I long ago lost interest in it, when it clearly became some sort of contest of oneupmanship.
> 
> I simply really dislike personal attacks by anyone on anyone else and believe you should be able to present your point of view without denigrating what you see as someone's inferior level of education compared with your own, about which we are left in no doubt.
> 
> ...




1. I guess you do not understand tongue in cheek remarks such as "don't hold your breath"... actually Julia, I hope you didn't take it TOO literally.


"don't hold your breath lol."   I note you conveniently left off the lol.  

2. You do seem to stalk my posts a lot. I could also note that it was you who then wrote the post above, not me, and with the history of your posts against mine, that is significant.

Julia, why can't you agree to disagree with my posts and move on?

you seem to be good at giving out advice that you do not adhere to.

3. As for intelligence, it is over-rated and also very very circumstantial.  I have a knowledge of health, and very little in many other areas, but in the instance of this forum, there are some very extremely obvious points that are misconstrued, and even though Billy is clearly the most experienced person, I think there are people here who are misleading others with their "qualifications".

It is not arrogant to state your qualifications if they are relevant.

4. Have you read the prior posts or are you commenting on one post in isolation?


----------



## Whiskers (14 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> eg we know that fluoride causes fluorosis, but you cannot Quantify it WITHOUT EVIDENCE.




But that is the whole point as Billy knows, there is "evidence " of how the research quantifies fluorosis. 

I mentioned earlier the Dean index that all the old original research and most of your approved peer reviewed sources use. I also mentioned there are better indicies being used today in some research.

To get back to the issue I was after before you and billy started back peddling and personality assisanation, as a dentist he has available to him pictorial evidence of those indicies or at least one of them that the Australian Dental Association subscribes to.

One would think it a pretty simple request and easy chore for a dentist to produce those reference pictures so we can all see what he means by insignificant, minor, moderate and major fluorosis.

Once again, Either you or Billy produce the evidence (pictures) to demonstarte what you mean by the various degrees of fluorosis.

Then we can gradually move on in an orderly progression to the more serious effects of fluoride/fluoridation.


----------



## trainspotter (14 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> As for intelligence, it is over-rated and also very very circumstantial.  I have a knowledge of health, and very little in many other areas,




"immutabilis haud censeo cum utpote"


----------



## medicowallet (14 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> But that is the whole point as Billy knows, there is "evidence " of how the research quantifies fluorosis.
> 
> Once again, Either you or Billy produce the evidence (pictures) to demonstarte what you mean by the various degrees of fluorosis.
> 
> Then we can gradually move on in an orderly progression to the more serious effects of fluoride/fluoridation.




1. Why can't you produce peer reviewed info on fluorosis in Australia? Or show it where fluoridation is similar to ours?

2. I guess by your renewed, mature stance, you will refrain from putting words into my mouth, and also from misrepresenting my position intentionally, (eg Vitamin D)

If you can somehow manage that, then, yes, civility will return to this thread, if not, then I cannot see how it can.


----------



## Whiskers (14 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Well there are a few reasons as to why
> 
> 1. It is not proven




I'm inclined to believe it is, as research in other countries corroborates it. But you are invited to explain why you think it's not proven.



> 2. I have consumed fluoridated water for many years and it hasn't affected my iq




Yeah, brain dead alcoholics and cancer ridden smokers say that too, often with a wink and a smile in their ignorance. It's a bit like going deaf... you will often be the last to know.

I believe you when you say you have or at least had "knowledge'' but seriously you are not demonstrating much intelligence with your commentary here. You might consider that (and 2.) food for thought in a somber moment. 



> 3. You are accusing our administration of a conspiracy that China has exposed.




Possibly, but you eloberate further on what you mean and I'll comment further.


----------



## medicowallet (14 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> I'm inclined to believe it is, as research in other countries corroborates it. But you are invited to explain why you think it's not proven.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




1. Show me the evidence and I'll change my mind. Where is the evidence? where is it quantified? Where is it significant? Where is the cost-benefit detrimental?

Remember cost-benefit?

2. I can say it, as the effect is not known.

3. I am saying that to believe the cost-benefit is so out of whack, and that the study is credible, then the government is knowingly committing a massive conspiracy. Unlike something like AGW where the debate is credible on both sides.


----------



## Whiskers (15 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> 1. Why can't you produce peer reviewed info on fluorosis in Australia? Or show it where fluoridation is similar to ours?




In short you and Billy continue to state matter-of-factly that fluorosis is minor and not of serious concern. 

The onus is on you to produce pictorial evidence of what you use as a gauge. If in your experience there is only mild fluorosis in Aus, then show a picture of what you mean by mild.

What's so difficult with that?


----------



## medicowallet (15 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> In short you and Billy continue to state matter-of-factly that fluorosis is minor and not of serious concern.
> 
> The onus is on you to produce pictorial evidence of what you use as a gauge. If in your experience there is only mild fluorosis in Aus, then show a picture of what you mean by mild.
> 
> What's so difficult with that?




No,

I have already provided evidence that the cost-benefit favours fluoridation.

I have posted links to studies, NHMRC review etc. whic show this, and that even though some people get fluorosis, on a population level, it is a small price to pay for the hhealth benefit.

See, for someone who does not deal with the health ramifications due to poor dental health (as you admit and show by not knowing what poor dental health actually causes), you focus on relatively trivial side effects of a treatment with little understanding of what happens in the real world.

I know that fluorosis is what the conspiracy theory sites focus on, and I do not deny it is a side effect, but, as proven in Australian studies, fluoridation has a favourable cost-benefit analysis, and in reality the *onus is on you to prove this wrong.*
That would end the debate.

And in time it will, just not now.

To focus on one relatively trivial side effect is denying the importance of the benefit of fluoridation, something you cannot deny with the evidence available, but you still try.


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2011)

Julia said:


> I am not commenting on the content of the discussion because I long ago lost interest in it, when it clearly became some sort of contest of oneupmanship.




Julia, you should have realized when you started this thread that it would draw all the anti-fluoride zealots out of the woodwork. It actually spawned Whiskers' obsession with the issue.

"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind",


*Fluoride, or how I learned to stop worrying and drink the water*


> *Fluoridation has been drawing cranks out of the woodwork for decades. In Cold War days, right-wingers raged against the growing practice of putting fluoride in the drinking water to prevent tooth decay.*
> 
> *Their fervour was lampooned in the 1964 Stanley Kubrick film Dr. Strangelove, in which rogue general Jack Ripper sends his bombers to nuke the Soviet Union.
> 
> ...




http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/n...rink-the-water/article1970745/?service=mobile


----------



## Whiskers (15 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> No,
> 
> I have already provided evidence that the cost-benefit favors fluoridation.




There's that defiant "No" again, before a change of subject. 

You really do have a problem with showing pictorial evidence of the the index you use to categorize the degree of fluorosis... what you call minor fluorosis.

What you provided is narrative of what fluoridation lobbyists carefully call efficacy (The ability to produce a desired or intended result) to easily confuse with efficiency or what you construe as cost-benefit, nothing even close to a holistic economic cost-benefit analysis.

The decision by the US Public Health Authorities earlier this year to remove the American Dental Association who have had a long conflict of interest from their early association with Colgate and ALCOA's waste removal scheme (ie to fluoridate the whole country to disperse their highly toxic by product, fluoride) from a significant heath departmental influence to a subcommittee of a subordinate department, is just the thin edge of the wedge.

Watch this space for further developments to unwind the conflicts of interest that pander half truths and block research and or publication of evidence and proof of the adverse effects of fluoridation which obviously flow through to blowing away the myth that fluoridation is completely safe and cost efficient on a holistic health and economic basis.



> I have posted links to studies, NHMRC review etc. whic show this, and that even though some people get fluorosis, on a population level, it is a small price to pay for the hhealth benefit.
> 
> See, for someone who does not deal with the health ramifications due to poor dental health (as you admit and show by not knowing what poor dental health actually causes), you focus on relatively trivial side effects of a treatment with little understanding of what happens in the real world.
> 
> ...




And not to forget the holier-than-thou mentality of imposing your will and beliefs and mass medicating everyone for the failings of a few that have poor dental health.

Remember the Significant Caries Indicies, (SiC) the top 30% and SIC10, the top 10% of dmft, that ARCPOH has, but won't publish on a state, postcode or local government level, which would clearly show where the problem areas are. 

_*The disproportionate burden of disease experienced by a few* is dramatically __demonstrated for children *with the highest 10% of dmft* values, where the average dmft was __between *3.7-times greater (for 8-year-olds)* and* more than 5-times greater (for 5-year-olds)* __than corresponding averages for the entire age group._​Page 12 @ http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/html_files/cdhs2002.pdf​*So why don't they publish the location of these people by smaller location than a national average grouping?*

Well, it's not hard to imagine if you were a lazy, or cheap and nasty health administrator, or even have a conflict of interest with Colgate, or other vested interests in promoting a commercial fluoride product or fluoride by-product of industry, you would turn a blind eye.​


----------



## Whiskers (15 April 2011)

Calliope said:


> Julia, you should have realized when you started this thread that it would draw all the anti-fluoride zealots out of the woodwork. It actually spawned Whiskers' obsession with the issue.
> 
> "They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind",
> 
> ...




Excuse me for butting in here Julia.

Well, Calliope it's easy to see the correlation between your vitriole and the repugnant attitude, language and complete lack of respect for others concerns by this tabloid writer.

Not obsession with fluoridation per se Calliope, but persistant alertness for accountability of our holier-than-thou public servants.

Those who bury their head in the sand are akin to those who do not want to see or be seen.

If you want to be an ostrich with your head in the sand, that's fine, but you don't have the right to demand everyone elso follow your folly.


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Well, Calliope it's easy to see the correlation between your vitriole and the repugnant attitude, language and complete lack of respect for others concerns by this tabloid writer.




As usual you get it wrong. What vitriole (sic)?  Respect has to be earned.



> you don't have the right to demand everyone elso (sic) follow your folly




Demand??? More hyperbole.


----------



## medicowallet (15 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> There's that defiant "No" again, before a change of subject.
> 
> You really do have a problem with showing pictorial evidence of the the index you use to categorize the degree of fluorosis... what you call minor fluorosis.
> 
> ...




I did not change subject,

Cost-benefit takes into account fluorosis. Once again you fail to understand a very very simple terminology.

I am sorry that you cannot accept the WHO or peak body literature from Australia in regards to fluoridation.  In their reports, it clearly states that the cost-benefit is in favour of fluoridation.

They also clearly state the fluorosis is a minor problem (which a huge proportion of the community would be unaware of, why? because it is un-noticable by many).

It is Whiskers vs the WHO and peak dental groups in Australia.

Yet you want me to provide the pictures that the WHO and dental groups use, come on, your insistence with this is immature and irrational.

All you would have to do is provide one single published study showing that the costs outweigh the benefits?

Where is it Whiskers?

Or is the consensus that there is a positive cost benefit argument for fluoridation?


----------



## Whiskers (15 April 2011)

Calliope said:


> As usual you get it wrong.




Nope.

Lets look at the linguistics (the scientific study of human language). 



> "They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind",




From the Bible (Hosea 8:7) meaning: A warning that we must expect to suffer serious consequences as the result of our own bad actions. We get back what we give out. 

Exactly the point of the questions I and others are asking of the so called evidence for mass fluoridation. If we accept bad information and science we must accept bad consequences.



> What vitriole (sic)?




Vitriol (vitriole in french for nit pickers  meaning: Cruel and bitter criticism.



> Respect has to be earned.




Exactly what your dis-respectful interjections and reference doesn't do. 

And since you mention one of your favorite personality attack weapons,* Hyperbole... it's meaning is:* the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression.

... which brings us back to your key saying... A warning that we must expect to suffer serious consequences as the result of our own bad actions. We get back what we give out. 

Hence my advice about the ostrich.


----------



## Whiskers (15 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Yet you want me to provide the pictures that the WHO and dental groups use, come on, your insistence with this is immature and irrational.




What is immature and irrational is that you beat around the bush so much to avoid posting a picture to calibrate your termonology of minor fluorosis against... not to mention specific page and paragraph or snip (screen shot) of your references to specific points.

You know ARCPOH has that SiC data. They're behaviour is consistant with theirs. What do you have to fear from openly displaying the pictures and data if the case for mass fluoridation is so compelling?


----------



## medicowallet (15 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> . What do you have to fear from openly displaying the pictures and data if the case for mass fluoridation is so compelling?




I have nothing to fear, hence, bring it on, and post what you supposedly have.

come on then, post your fluoridation cost-benefit study.

I have the WHO saying that fluoridation has positive cost benefit analysis and that fluorosis is a minor side effect  (which, by the way I posted a link to)

What do you have?

All I can see is you running around in circles shouting about fluorosis, without any evidence to back up your conspiracy theorist claims.


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Vitriol (vitriole in french for nit pickers  meaning: Cruel and bitter criticism.



Your responses to other posters is mainly vitriol. ( bitterly abusive language; invective or vituperation)



> Exactly what your dis-respectful interjections and reference doesn't do.




See above.


----------



## Billyb (16 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> The onus is on you to produce pictorial evidence of what you use as a gauge. If in your experience there is only mild fluorosis in Aus, then show a picture of what you mean by mild.




In the nicest way possible, Whiskers, I have already posted a photo of 'mild' fluorosis that you even replied too. I do not intend to keep repeating myself, as I have done so enough already (as have others). The reality is that you've run out of anything sensible to say about this topic  so all you are doing now is switching the attention back onto me with your pointless request. Nice try.

You are far too obsessed with this issue, to the point where you turn a blind eye to the clear body of evidence that shows the value of water fluoridation to community oral health. You also do not seem to understand scientific literature, which I don't expect you to. But if you do not understand it, you cannot legitamately debate this topic.


----------



## Whiskers (16 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> In the nicest way possible, Whiskers, I have already posted a photo of 'mild' fluorosis that you even replied too.




*Billy, that post and question was to medicowallet,* not you, fool. See snip below. 

*This is the problem with you and medicowallet... you are masters of spin and confusion.*

Actually you didn't post the picture, you posted a link to a picture. What I've been asking you for and you keep dodging around, is your pictorial reference of the full fluorosis scale range.



Billyb said:


> (*From Post # 555*)
> I'm talking about mild fluorosis. Only severe fluorosis has mottling. Mild fluorosis is a just a few specks of white on the teeth. Probably 99% of fluorosis in Australia is of the mild type (from what I've seen). Here's a photo of mild fluorosis
> 
> http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/159/10/943/POA50053F1
> ...






Whiskers said:


> (*From Post # 556*)
> Well, we finally have a fluorosis picture from Billyb... from his above link. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...943/POA50053F1
> 
> Like so much of the adverse effects of fluoridation, he is a bit shy in sticking it out in the open, so I snipped it here, with my next question.
> ...



So since you are loath to openly display these things up front in your posts, I'll post some here... and watch for the rheotric to follow.


----------



## Billyb (16 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Actually you didn't post the picture, you posted a link to a picture.




I'm sorry you're unable to simply click that link...

Good on you for finally posting those pictures up! Too bad you didn't have a single point to make about them though. You really are a funny type of guy.



Whiskers said:


> This is the problem with you and medicowallet... you are masters of spin and confusion




Don't make me laugh. lol

Oh, by the way, what is your opinion on using Colgate toothpaste? I note in one of your first posts when you sparked such a passion for this topic, you said you would stop using fluoridated toothpaste. I wonder if your position is still the same. Do you think the fluoride in toothpaste reduces dental decay in the community?


----------



## Whiskers (16 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> Good on you for finally posting those pictures up! Too bad you didn't have a single point to make about them though.




The picture is the point... that fluorosis is not an insignificant issue.

You might be happy as you say, to see ten suffer from fluorosis in a vain attempt to save one from dying from tooth abscess, BUT the point is those of us who practice good hygene should not have to suffer induced fluorosis in the futile attempt to mass medicate to try to save someone who cares little about their own dental hygene. 



> Oh, by the way, what is your opinion on using *Colgate* toothpaste?




Stopped using it as a conscientious objection to their corrupt participation in the disposal of toxic fluoride contamination in the mid 1900's and continued sponsership of biased research and much unpublished data that they and their sponsered organisations don't want us to know... such as the Significant Caries index (SiC) data from ARCPOH.

Soo, you still haven't explained the physiological process that is hypomineralisation with the associated minerals etc that is/causes dental fluorosis?


----------



## medicowallet (16 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> I have nothing to fear, hence, bring it on, and post what you supposedly have.
> 
> come on then, post your fluoridation cost-benefit study.
> 
> I have the WHO saying that fluoridation has positive cost benefit analysis and that fluorosis is a minor side effect  (which, by the way I posted a link to)




Ok so I asked for some EVIDENCE, like some cost-benefit study to quantify the effect and I get some pictures.




Whiskers said:


> The picture is the point... that fluorosis is not an insignificant issue.
> 
> You might be happy as you say, to see ten suffer from fluorosis in a vain attempt to save one from dying from tooth abscess, BUT the point is those of us who practice good hygene should not have to suffer induced fluorosis in the futile attempt to mass medicate to try to save someone who cares little about their own dental hygene.




Yes, I am quite happy for us to have an extremely low risk of a very minor problem to prevent excessive cost, morbidity and mortality, especially in our most vulnerable. I also think cardiac concerns, especially with an ageing population are beyond your expertise, so I can understand your exceptionally simplistic view on the subject.

I guess some of us are a bit less self centred and more caring for others.


----------



## Whiskers (16 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Yes, I am quite happy for us to have an extremely low risk of a very minor problem




Well, with the birth place of fluoridation, the USA, concerned about 30% fluorosis and rising, you must be an ostrich (with your head in the sand) and, or a fanatical public health dictator to be happy with that (understatement of yours).



> to prevent excessive cost, morbidity and mortality, especially in our most vulnerable. I also think cardiac concerns, especially with an ageing population are beyond your expertise, so I can understand your exceptionally simplistic view on the subject.




Well, you might be surprised what I know about "ageing" and "cardiac concerns".

So please elaborate on these "cardiac concerns" and how they are so inextricably linked to compulsary fluoridation. 



> I guess some of us are a bit less self centred and more caring for others.




This I can't wait for... please explain how opposing mass medication, ie compulsary fluoridation, equates to being self centered and not caring for others.


----------



## medicowallet (16 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Well, with the birth place of fluoridation, the USA, concerned about 30% fluorosis and rising, you must be an ostrich (with your head in the sand) and, or a fanatical public health dictator to be happy with that (understatement of yours).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Whiskers, you know about the cardiac concerns.

You just focus on fluorosis for some reason, even though the WHO says it is minor, and that there is a cost-benefit analysis supportive of fluoridation.

It is quite simple really

Either you are wrong, or the WHO is wrong

AND

you are accusing the WHO of a conspiracy theory.

Yes fluorosis is around 25%, but how much is due to fluoridation and also this includes very mild and mild fluorosis.

You put this minor, cosmetic concern against truly serious and horrible conditions and expect people who deal with these conditions to be conned by you as to the importance of fluorosis.


----------



## Whiskers (16 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Whiskers, you know about the cardiac concerns.
> 
> You just focus on fluorosis for some reason even though the WHO says it is minor, and that there is a cost-benefit analysis supportive of fluoridation.




No, I said I was starting with the so called less serious issues and working up. If you guys didn't beat around the bush and dodge and weave so much, you might remember better.

Most likely they just haven't updated to the latest research yet completed only late last year.



> Yes fluorosis is around 25%, but how much is due to fluoridation and also this includes very mild and mild fluorosis.




Explained earlier, in the research I posted... it's all due to fluoride, it's just that fluoridation adds a compounding dosage as the fluoridated water passes through the food processing chain. I wonder why they never figured that would happen before now! 



> You put this minor, cosmetic concern against *truly serious and horrible conditions* and expect people who deal with these conditions to be conned by you as to the importance of fluorosis.




*Well I asked you to please elaborate on these "cardiac concerns" and how they are so inextricably linked to compulsary fluoridation... so please tell.*

And don't forget to_ please explain how opposing mass medication, ie compulsary fluoridation, equates to being self centered and not caring for others._


----------



## medicowallet (16 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> *Well I asked you to please elaborate on these "cardiac concerns" and how they are so inextricably linked to compulsary fluoridation... so please tell.*
> 
> And don't forget to_ please explain how opposing mass medication, ie compulsary fluoridation, equates to being self centered and not caring for others._




I have addressed cardiac concerns before, remember, the first time in this thread that Julia berated me.

Inextricably linked!! Check out WHO studies linking fluoridation to better oral health my friend.

Going against any proven public health initiative where the evidence clearly shows a positive cost-benefit, because you have gone all conspiracy theorist is plainly unethical and downright crazy.

In my profession you make life and death decisions regularly, these are often done with percentages obtained from evidence based studies and also professional expertise. I am sure you would struggle with these kinds of situations (a lot do), and this is evidenced by your inability to see the big picture.

All you can see is lol flourosis, something which an extremely vast proportion of the population is totally unaware of.... I wonder why.


----------



## Billyb (17 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> The picture is the point... that fluorosis is not an insignificant issue.




yes you are unable to see the big picture. First it was cancer and bone disease. Now its fluorosis fluorosis fluorosis fluorosis.  If you are so concerned about fluorosis then why don't you also turn your crusade against the companies that make fluoride toothpastes and fluoride tablets - history shows that these are the big contributors to fluorosis. 

If you reckon the slightly increased risk of (mild)  fluorosis outweighs the dramatic benefit of decreased dental disease and tooth loss then that's your misguided opinion. You can stick with it if you want.



Whiskers said:


> Most likely they just haven't updated to the latest research yet completed only late last year.




Lol does this research exist in your imagination? If its real and exists in real life, then find it 



Whiskers said:


> And don't forget to_ please explain how opposing compulsary fluoridation, equates to being self centered and not caring for others._




You answered your own question here:



Whiskers said:


> You might be happy as you say, to see ten suffer from fluorosis in a vain attempt to save one from dying from tooth abscess, BUT the point is those of us who practice good hygene should not have to suffer induced fluorosis in the futile attempt to mass medicate to try to save someone who cares little about their own dental hygene.




What this shows me is that you don't care (or you don't understand) about the benefit water fluoridation has for low socioeconomic communities. These people have high decay rates because *they are not as fortunate as you - they did not grow up in a wealthy environment which included the passing on of good dental hygiene and dental education*. Your tall poppy syndrome lends you to the your belief of 'why should I have to drink fluoridated water just because these unfortunate (less wealthy and less educated) have poor oral hygiene and lots of decay? That is self-centred IMO. I wonder if you've ever done any voluntary work for less fortunate people in your lifetime.


----------



## derty (17 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> No, I said I was starting with the so called less serious issues and working up.



Why don't you just list all these issues, your evidence and support for these into a single succinct post? Why the need to fluff about with all this posturing and nitpicking?


----------



## DB008 (17 April 2011)

Report 1 (1989)
Collection of papers and abstracts of 4th China Fluoride Research Association. 6:73.
Research on the Intellectual Ability of 6-14 Year Old Students in an Area with
Endemic Fluoride Poisoning
Hu Yunsen, Yu Zuxin,
Office of Endemic Disease Prevention and Control, Ankang Region, Shaanxi Provice
Ding Riqing,
Sanitation and Antiepidemic Station, Ankang City, Shaanxi Province

Report 2 (1989)
A STUDY OF THE INTELLECTUAL ABILITY OF 8–14 YEAR-OLD
CHILDREN IN HIGH FLUORIDE, LOW IODINE AREAS
Dali Ren,a Kecheng Li,a Dawei Liua
Shandong, China

Report 3 (1990)
USING THE RAVEN’S STANDARD PROGRESSIVE MATRICES TO
DETERMINE THE EFFECTS OF THE LEVEL OF FLUORIDE IN
DRINKING WATER ON THE INTELLECTUAL ABILITY
OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN
Liansheng Qin,a Shuyi Huo,a Ruiliang Chen,b Yinzi Chang,c Mingyu Zhao,d
Hubei, China

Report 4 (1991)
A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF THE IQS OF 7–13 YEAR-OLD CHILDREN FROM AN AREA WITH COAL BURNING-RELATED FLUORIDE POISONING

Report 5 (1991)
The relationship of a low iodine and high fluoride environment to subclinical cretenism in Xinjiang

Report 6 (1991)
RESEARCH ON THE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN IN HIGH FLUORIDE AREAS

Report 7 (1994)
Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1994
The Effects of High Levels of Fluoride and Iodine on Child
Intellectual Ability and the Metabolism of Fluoride and Iodine

Report 8 (1994)
EFFECTS OF HIGH FLUORIDE INTAKE ON CHILD MENTAL WORK
CAPACITY: PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION INTO
THE MECHANISMS INVOLVED

Report 9 (1995)
EFFECT OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE
ON INTELLIGENCE IN CHILDREN

Report 10 (1996)
A STUDY OF THE IQ LEVELS OF FOUR- TO SEVEN-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN IN HIGH FLUORIDE AREAS

Report 11 (1996)
EFFECT OF A HIGH FLUORIDE WATER SUPPLY

Report 12 (2000)
EFFECT OF HIGH-FLUORIDE WATER
ON INTELLIGENCE IN CHILDREN
ON CHILDREN'S INTELLJGENCE

Report 13 (2001)
RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE ON CHILD INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER DIFFERENT
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

Report 14 (2003)
EFFECTS OF ENDEMIC FLUORIDE POISONING ON THE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN IN BAOTOU

Report 15 (2003)
EFFECT OF FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER ON CHILDREN’S INTELLIGENCE

Report 16 (2005)
Journal of Applied Clinical Pediatrics Vol. 20 No.9, September 2005; pp 897-898.
The Effects of Endemic Fluoride Poisoning Caused by Coal Burning
on the Physical Development and Intelligence of Children

Report 17 (2007)
Effect of high-fluoride water on 7-11 year-old children's intelligence

Report 18 (2007)
Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water

Report 19 (2007)
EFFECT OF HIGH FLUORIDE WATER ON INTELLIGENCE OF SCHOOL CHILDREN IN INDIA

Report 20 (2007)
Arsenic and Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water: Children’s IQ and Growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi Province, China



> http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=222
> 
> It appears that many of fluoride’s effects, and those of the alumino fluoride complexes are mediated by activation of Gp, a protein of the G family. G proteins mediate the release of many of the best known transmitters of the central nervous system. Not only do fluorides affect transmitter concentrations and functions but also are involved in the regulation of glucagons, prostaglandins, and a number of central nervous system peptides, including vasopressin, endogenous opioids, and other hypothalamic peptides. The AlFx binds to GDP and ADP altering their ability to form the triphosphate molecule essential for providing energies to cells in the brain. Thus, AlFx not only provides false messages throughout the nervous system but, at the same time, diminishes the energy essential to brain function.
> 
> Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. Today, the disruption of aerobic metabolism in the brain, a reduction of effectiveness of acetylcholine as a transmitter, and an increase in free radicals are thought to be causative factors for this disease. More research is needed to clarify fluoride’s biochemical effects on the brain.


----------



## medicowallet (17 April 2011)

All very interesting reading Danny

Is there any reason as to why these reports are all from china (and india)?

Any from first world countries?


Can you find any reports from anywhere where pollution, contamination etc from other sources may not be a cause?


----------



## Billyb (17 April 2011)

Dannyboy, almost every article there is from the journal "Fluoride", which is an anti-fluoridation group. Do you think there may be some bias in those articles?

You should read the articles you posted. Almost all of them just look dodgy and dubious, some of them don't even mention what the concentration of fluoride is in the water of the areas they are studying other than calling it 'high fluoride', and many of them are testing the effects of 'fluoride poisoning from coal burning' which doesn't occur in Australia with our low concentrations of F in just water. Most of them also seem to be from from China for some reason?!?. 

They are poor quality extrememly biased studies, sorry. WHO doesn't even bother to look at those types of studies. 

Let me give you an example of what a good quality study looks like. The article is called
*Water fluoridation in the Blue Mountains reduces risk of tooth decay.
Australian Dental Journal
Evans RW, Hsiau AC, Dennison PJ, Patterson A, Jalaludin B.*

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2009.01164.x/pdf

This is a good study that differs from all the 'studies' you provided because
-It provides summaries of the data for the reader to analyse for bias
-It has a control group. What they did is they compared the Blue mountains caries experience (fluoridated '93) to a nearby town (Hawksebury - fluoriated since '68). If there was no control group then we don't know if the reduced caries experience may have been caused just by other factors such as the recent increased use of fluoridated toothpaste and awareness of oral hygiene. 
-A reputable journal and reputable authors. 


What they found is
- that there were huge reductions in caries experience in the Blue mountains but only modest reductions in the control group
-At baseline in 1993 the town fluoridated since 63 had far lower caries prevalence

Abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20415937


----------



## Whiskers (17 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> If you are so concerned about fluorosis then why don't you also turn your crusade against the companies that make fluoride toothpastes and fluoride tablets - history shows that these are the big contributors to fluorosis.




Well... only yesterday you might recall I said;
_Stopped using it as a conscientious objection to their corrupt participation in the disposal of toxic fluoride contamination in the mid 1900's and continued sponsership of biased research and much unpublished data that they and their sponsered organisations don't want us to know... such as the Significant Caries index (SiC) data from ARCPOH._
​*The other significant distinguishing factor* that you and medicowallet have no regard for is the civil rights of individuals. If individuals choose to use fluoride toothpaste, tablets, mouthwash etc, that's their* individual choice and responsibility*.

Whereas compulsary fluoridation goes against the notion of individual rights and responsibilities, especially for people who do not need mass medication forced on them. 




> Lol does this research exist in your imagination? If its real and exists in real life, then find it




*Billy, I have posted the link numerous times already*. Here is a collection of reports that the US HHS are currently considering and implementing. http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/fluoride_index.cfm

One of the main reports the Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis (PDF) was only published in December 2010.

*If you look at the chart below from the report, you will see that in that critical 1 to 11 year age group fluoride from water consumption is only 40% of their total fluoride intake... hence the increasing rate of fluorosis including more severe dental fluorosis.*

The other issue also of concern is the likely corresponding increase of skeletal fluorosis which is not visable.



> What this shows me is that you don't care (or you don't understand) about the benefit water fluoridation has for low socioeconomic communities. These people have high decay rates because *they are not as fortunate as you - they did not grow up in a wealthy environment which included the passing on of good dental hygiene and dental education*.




I certainly did not grow up in a wealthy environment, but I was taught and embraced good behaviour and hygene.



> Your tall poppy syndrome lends you to the your belief of 'why should I have to drink fluoridated water just because these unfortunate (less wealthy and less educated) have poor oral hygiene and lots of decay? That is self-centred IMO. I wonder if you've ever done any voluntary work for less fortunate people in your lifetime.




Struth, now you think I'm a tall poppy!

Indeed, I have been involved in community organisations and helping the poor for a long time.

The best way to help the poor, uneducated, underprivilaged and handicapped is to help them help themselves. This involves with meeting them face to face to inform, educate and teach them how to make better choices and recognise the consequences they have to accept for their chioces, good and bad.

*Patronising behaviour* *like* *compulsary fluoridation* does nothing to teach people better habits... on the contrary, it leads many into a false sense of security that because the water is fluoridated their dental health issues are taken care of. 

It's fairly basis psychology. When you patronize people, like making important decisions for them, they don't learn to make good decisions for themselves to be independent, self sufficient and responsible for their own actions.


----------



## Whiskers (17 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> I have addressed cardiac concerns before, remember, the first time in this thread that Julia berated me.
> 
> Inextricably linked!! Check out WHO studies linking fluoridation to better oral health my friend.




*Inextricable*: *incapable of being disentangled or untied.*

WHO make some casual links with better dental hygene, but none that are inextricably linked to fluoridation.



> All you can see is lol flourosis, something which an extremely vast proportion of the population is totally unaware of.... I wonder why.




As I mentioned earlier, I'm progressivly and systematically working up the order of seriousness of the side effects of fluoridation.

Sure most fluorosis may be hardly noticable visually to start with, but it does progress and can be a warning for skeletal fluorosis which is not visable, but far more serious.

As a medical practioner you should know better than to imply that because people are not aware of something it's not important. People generally are not familiar with the signs of many serious disorders and diseases.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> *Inextricable*: *incapable of being disentangled or untied.*
> 
> WHO make some casual links with better dental hygene, but none that are inextricably linked to fluoridation.
> 
> ...




You certainly have your teeth in to this cause.

Do pommies have fluoridation?

They have the worst teeth in the world, especially if they collect antiques or cook for a living.

Any studies, Whiskers, on Pommy teeth?

gg


----------



## Whiskers (17 April 2011)

derty said:


> Why don't you just list all these issues, your evidence and support for these into a single succinct post?




I think all the know issues have been aired earlier in the thread. 

The other point I'm currently working on is what data and evidence has not beed published and why? These issues include conflicts of interest between researchers and associated organisations with much of the 'accepted' best practice and advice. 



> Why the need to fluff about with all this posturing and nitpicking?




Posturing... well I suppose that would be my devils advocate position. I think you would recognise that in any good decision making structure/process one has someone play devils advocate to test the strength of your case/arguement.

Nitpicking... that would be examining the detail, including the limitations, exclusions, terms of reference and other limiting factors that have a bearing on the quality and integrity of the reports.


----------



## Whiskers (17 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You certainly have your teeth in to this cause.
> 
> Do pommies have fluoridation?
> 
> ...




I haven't seen many at all on pommies, gg. But keep watching and I'll see what I can find for you.

Most studies, or at least most of those accepted by the Dental associations come from the US or the University of Adelade dentistry school.

There is a fair bit coming out of India and China, probably as a legacy of industrial plants located there by western companies.


----------



## medicowallet (17 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> As a medical practioner you should know better than to imply that because people are not aware of something it's not important. People generally are not familiar with the signs of many serious disorders and diseases.




Medical practitioners are also aware that there are things people are unaware of which are insignificant too.... like fluorosis.


----------



## trainspotter (17 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Medical practitioners are also aware that there are things people are unaware of which are insignificant too.... like fluorosis.




No no no no no no no ......... you have to be a thread hog and spout all sorts of meaningless diatribe and red herrings to fluster the opposition. Have I taught you nothing? A simple sentence will not win the debate/argument/theory/altercation/dispute/moot point .... what about pie charts and graphs and links to other websites espousing the virtues of your opinion??? Post a picture of some gnarly dude with hippo teeth and gum disease caused by smoking and bad diet which has nothing to do with flourosis (or whatever you are damn well arguing about) to prove your point. You are a doctor of MEDICINE for crying out loud !!!!!!!!

Then when it all fails go on about the "written" language and bog yourself down in linguistics to get your message across. DAMN ........ even go for the seven kinds of hats by Ern A Flint with an Asshat on top. For Chrissake man. Don'tgive up now.

Then when that doesn't suit you ..... garble on about some ridiculous findings from third world countries that have brainwashed the masses to keep them in check to stop them from having an opinion and "WE KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU !" mentality.

C'mon you can do better than that !!!!!!!


----------



## medicowallet (17 April 2011)

trainspotter said:


> No no no no no no no ......... you have to be a thread hog and spout all sorts of meaningless diatribe and red herrings to fluster the opposition. Have I taught you nothing? A simple sentence will not win the debate/argument/theory/altercation/dispute/moot point .... what about pie charts and graphs and links to other websites espousing the virtues of your opinion??? Post a picture of some gnarly dude with hippo teeth and gum disease caused by smoking and bad diet which has nothing to do with flourosis (or whatever you are damn well arguing about) to prove your point. You are a doctor of MEDICINE for crying out loud !!!!!!!!
> 
> Then when it all fails go on about the "written" language and bog yourself down in linguistics to get your message across. DAMN ........ even go for the seven kinds of hats by Ern A Flint with an Asshat on top. For Chrissake man. Don'tgive up now.
> 
> ...




Yes Sensai

I also note your keen use of the exclamation marks, capitals, repeating the same word many times, and am wondering if using bold would also help my cause?

Yours Sincerely
Grasshopper


----------



## trainspotter (17 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Yes Sensai
> 
> I also note your keen use of the exclamation marks, capitals, repeating the same word many times, and am wondering if using bold would also help my cause?
> 
> ...




First of all it is Sensei with an "e". ....Usually a Japanese title used to refer to or address teachers, professors, professionals such as lawyers, CPA and doctors, politicians, clergymen or people of high importance in a structured society.

And yes my little lotus flower it will not hurt to use some BIG LETTERS and some exclamatory points to get across your valid constructive FACTS as well as the good old "strawman theory" to get your point accepted by the great unwashed masses ..... not to mention how many times you have *PROVED* a case point argument which has been subjugated by alterior thinking that has little or no relevance to the subject matter at hand. The classic red herring to throw the fox off the scent when you are losing is an old foe for political tricks ... been around for centuries and takes the mind away from the core of the end whistle.

I am on the medical and dentistry side personally and have swallowed flouride from a very young age. My teeth are perfect and my liver is poisoned. This is from alcohol and nothing else. I rest my case. Chin chin old man.


----------



## medicowallet (17 April 2011)

So how are you managing to live with your fluorosis, or has your IQ dropped to such a level you don't care?


----------



## motorway (18 April 2011)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/4891348/Hamiltons-fluoride-debate-rages

Mention  of the Pineal in this news story.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11275672



> This study has added new knowledge on the fate and distribution of fluoride in the body. It has shown for the first time that fluoride readily accumulates in the human pineal gland although there was considerable inter-individual variation (14-875 mg F/kg). By old age, the average pineal gland contains about the same amount of fluoride as teeth (300 mg F/kg) since dentine and whole enamel contain 300 and 100 mg F/kg, respectively [Newbrun, 1986].
> 
> Unlike brain capillaries, pineal capillaries allow the free passage of fluoride through the endothelium. If there had been a bloodbrain barrier in the pineal, it would have prevented the passage of fluoride into the pinealocytes and the pineal fluoride content would have been similar to or lower than muscle.
> 
> This was obviously not the case: the fluoride concentration of the pineal was significantly higher (p<0.001) than muscle. The high fluoride levels in the pineal are presumably due to the large surface area of the HA crystallites both intra- and extracellularly. In addition, the pineal has a profuse blood flow and high capillary density; pineal blood flow (4 ml/min/g) is second only to the kidney [Arendt, 19951.





Can not see how you can divorce Dental Health with Health in General
I think there is important link between Vitamin D and Diet , The History of Rickets
And the relation to changing Dental health over the 20th century

http://www.ajcn.org/content/20/11/1234.full.pdf



> Statistics of the 1920’s are almost unbelievable. After Hess observed 250 babies for 4 years He concluded that rickets was
> universal in bottle-fed babies (41). lncidence increased from summmer to March
> In Baltimore, 50% of a group of wellnourished, breast-fed babies had rickets by
> the end of March (42).
> ...




The Teeth in Rickets
J. Lawson Dick

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2017392/pdf/procrsmed00750-0089.pdf



> THESE observations on the teeth in rickets form part of a general
> examination of 1,000 school children attending L.C.C. schools in the
> East End of London. Without entering into the larger results it
> may be stated that 80 per cent. showed distinct evidence of rickets.
> ...




GG Interesting that Rickets was called the ""ENGLISH DISEASE"

A little Vitamin D and Improvement in Diet.. Cured rickets as an "epidemic " and would have resulted in significant improvement in Dental Health ..

Diet is probably KEY



> Tooth decay is epidemic in poor and minority populations, according to the Surgeon General, the same groups that suffer a disproportionately high amount of almost all recorded diseases including obesity and diabetes -- both linked to sugar overconsumption.
> 
> Many poor continue to eat diets that lack several key nutrients and are high in fat and sugar, according to a study reported by Reuters Health on April 26, 2001.
> Dentists also report tooth decay increases in soda drinking children despite ingesting recommended fluoride.
> ...





Motorway


----------



## trainspotter (18 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> So how are you managing to live with your fluorosis, or has your IQ dropped to such a level you don't care?




Whats an IQ ? Do they even do those tests these days? Ohhhhhhhhhhhh sorry ....... I thought you were talking about cirrhosis and not flourosis. Had dental flourosis when I wsa a kid. After my primary teeth fell out no more problem . Oh well.


----------



## Whiskers (18 April 2011)

Hope you don't mind if I climb all over this, Danny.



Billyb said:


> Dannyboy, almost every article there is from the journal "Fluoride", which is an anti-fluoridation group. Do you think there may be some bias in those articles?




So by your rationale one could say all your so called peer reviewed articles are from anti, anti-fluoridation groups.

Billy,'anti' compulsory fluoridation is a civil right, not a bias. 

Just because a government makes statutory legislation to mass fluoridate, (fluoridation) doesn't make it right... it just makes their bias temporarily 'legal'. 

*Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives.*

Since you mention bias... *please list all your peer reviewed articles that don't have a bias, more particularly a conflict of interest with the fluoride waste/by-product industry* or rely heavily on material produced by those with such conflict of interest.


----------



## Whiskers (18 April 2011)

motorway said:


> GG Interesting that Rickets was called the ""ENGLISH DISEASE"
> 
> A little Vitamin D and Improvement in Diet.. Cured rickets as an "epidemic " and would have resulted in significant improvement in Dental Health ..
> 
> ...




Another very informative post, motorway. 

Let us know if you need more info gg. Someone will know something.


I think it's worth highlighting the notion of cause and effect that you remind us of again, motorway.
_*Tooth decay is epidemic in poor and minority populations*, according to the Surgeon General, *the same groups that suffer a disproportionately high amount of almost all recorded diseases including obesity and diabetes* --__* both linked to sugar overconsumption. *_

_Many poor continue to eat diets that lack several key nutrients and are high in fat and sugar, according to a study reported by Reuters Health on April 26, 2001._
_Dentists also report tooth decay increases in soda drinking children despite ingesting recommended fluoride._

_Dental researcher, Professor Brian Burt, DDS, University of Michigan, reported to the NIH panel, "... _*avoiding consumption of excess sugar is a justifiable part of caries prevention, if not the most crucial aspect." *
​It's also interesting that the American Dental Association (ADA) list fluoride as a "nutrient" despite there being absolutely no evidence that it is inextricably necessary for human life.

Fluoride is more correctly a mineral or chemical by-product of volcanic and industrial activity.

Also interesting that the ADA don't include Iodine, which is an essential nutrient... that the body can confuse with fluoride and which fluoride displaces. The WHO report about half of the world population is either deficient in, or at risk of Iodine deficiency. A brief reference to iodine deficiency in laymans terms at wikipedia:
_*iodine deficiency* gives rise to __goiter__ (so-called __endemic goiter__), as well as __cretinism__, which results in developmental delays and other health problems. While noting recent progress, __The Lancet__ noted, "According to __WHO__, in 2007, nearly 2 billion individuals had insufficient iodine intake, a third being of school age. ... Thus iodine deficiency, as the single greatest preventable cause of __mental retardation__, is an important __public-health__ problem."[1]_​So, you don't have to be an Einstein to see a correlation between the proliferation of fluoride and fluoridation which coinsides with the proliferation of serious health issues from Iodine deficiency.

Whereas some fluoride products can have a medicinal effect to repair poor health issues on an individual level, mass fluoridation certainly has some big issues with the holistic efficiency of Public Health cost-benifits and impartial (no conflict of interest) research and advice.


----------



## medicowallet (18 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> [/INDENT]So, you don't have to be an Einstein to see a correlation between the proliferation of fluoride and fluoridation which coinsides with the proliferation of serious health issues from Iodine deficiency.
> 
> Whereas some fluoride products can have a medicinal effect to repair poor health issues on an individual level, mass fluoridation certainly has some big issues with the holistic efficiency of Public Health cost-benifits and impartial (no conflict of interest) research and advice.




"I think it's worth highlighting the notion of cause and effect"


So you previously highlighted something now that you disregard?

Typical of your efforts in distorting reality isn't it.


----------



## medicowallet (18 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Since you mention bias... *please list all your peer reviewed articles that don't have a bias, more particularly a conflict of interest with the fluoride waste/by-product industry* or rely heavily on material produced by those with such conflict of interest.




And it STILL only takes ONE study to make fluoridation go away.

Where is this study?


----------



## Whiskers (18 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> "I think it's worth highlighting the notion of cause and effect"
> 
> 
> *So you previously highlighted something now that you disregard?*
> ...




Poor grammar or maybe in particuar poor morphology has me  as to what you mean.


----------



## Whiskers (18 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> And it STILL only takes ONE study to make fluoridation go away.
> 
> Where is this study?




No, it takes a change of legislation for fluoridation to go away.

There are many studies that show adverse effects of fluoridation that the peak bodies previously infiltrated by industry that had a problem with disposing of toxic fluoride waste/by-product, had either dismissed or did not allow publication in so called 'peer' reviewed journals.

That is starting to happen with the fluoridation rate starting to come down significantly as governments become aware that the net public benifit from mass fluoridation has been distorted by corrupt and or biased research from organisations with a conflict of interest with the fluoride waste/by-product industry.

In time fluoridation will likely be shown to be a worse than Asbestos, DDT, global warming and pink bats combined.


----------



## Billyb (18 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Since you mention bias... please list all your peer reviewed articles that don't have a bias, more particularly a conflict of interest with the fluoride waste/by-product industry[/B] or rely heavily on material produced by those with such conflict of interest.




One example only to keep it succinct
Do you think the authors of the article I posted earlier (see abstract below) have a conflict of interest with the fluoride waste/by-product industry? I see no evidence to suggest this. You cannot honestly accuse these authors of having that kind of conflict of interest without a reason to do so other than "that's just what I think".

These guys went out to a bunch of clinics, charted the teeth, collected the data, provided the data in the article, and produced the results. How can you accuse them of manipulating that data.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20415937)




Whiskers said:


> In time fluoridation will likely be shown to be a worse than Asbestos, DDT, global warming and pink bats combined.




You reached this conclusion using a lot of different sources (websites, news articles etc) but none of them were good sound scientific studies. 
'In time' should have elapsed by now. Fluoridation has been around for a while in some areas.


----------



## DB008 (18 April 2011)

*Fluoride in Drinking Water:
A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards*


http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571




> Chapter 7
> Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral Effects
> 
> This chapter evaluates the effects of fluoride on the nervous system and behavior, with particular emphasis on studies conducted since the earlier NRC (1993) review. The human data include epidemiologic studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride and individual case studies. In addition, laboratory studies of behavioral, biochemical, and neuroanatomical changes induced by fluoride have been reviewed and summarized. At the end of the chapter, conclusions and recommendations for future research are presented.
> ...




More on the link above....

Again, l will get shot down by Medico and Billy.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (18 April 2011)

DB008 said:


> Again, l will get shot down by Medico and Billy.




You have to remember there are people on forums that will spout disinfo - perhaps they are paid to do so or they have a vested interest in the topic.

By observing the amount of discussion, studies and reports on fluoride it's clear that there are enough significant factors to warrant suspension of fluoride and to undertake an independent multi-year study of the affects of fluoride consumption. 

It is the authorities obligation to ensure safety at all times, hence if there is now doubt about fluoride consumption then an independent review needs to be undertaken.

Billy and Medi can spout whatever they want on this forum - since they are not the ones responsible for anyone's health here and nor do they accept any liability for the use or misuse of fluoride. Or perhaps I am wrong and fluoride is perfectly safe, hence Billy and Medi will you accept full commercial liability should fluoride be proven to affect the health of those that you spouted your propaganda on this forum? I didn't think so. 

However, the authorities that dose the population with fluoride do have a liability and a responsibility - it is these people that need to answer the questions raised here.


----------



## medicowallet (18 April 2011)

DB008 said:


> Again, l will get shot down by Medico and Billy.




Of course you will.

Where was the study published?
What are the p-values? (because looking at the graphs and the confidence intervals, looks like p>0.05 to me



OzWaveGuy said:


> Billy and Medi can spout whatever they want on this forum - since they are not the ones responsible for anyone's health here and nor do they accept any liability for the use or misuse of fluoride. Or perhaps I am wrong and fluoride is perfectly safe, hence Billy and Medi will you accept full commercial liability should fluoride be proven to affect the health of those that you spouted your propaganda on this forum? I didn't think so.




do you accept responsibility for lack of fluoridation on the negative health outcomes of people with poor dental health?

I didn't think so.

Personally OWG, I prefer to side with the WHO instead of you, or perhaps you would like to provide a cost-benefit study which shows fluoridation is ineffective.

I don't think you will.

Perhaps those arguing tactics work in other threads, but in this one there is clear, published, peer reviewed scientific evidence that supports fluoridation, and to go against the science is just ludicrous.


----------



## medicowallet (19 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Poor grammar or maybe in particuar poor morphology has me  as to what you mean.




Poor spelling in there.

You can't understand that your stance is something that you ridiculed prior IN THE SAME POST? lol

You cannot try to say something about cause and effect and then later in the post try to relate something to another without any reference to causation.

That is ludicrous

P.S. I love your references to grammar and to spelling.  I know you think you are highly educated because you got a token invite to the golden key club in a weak uni course (which is quite easy to receive). I wish I had the time to address all of the spelling mistakes you have made, but will not be so petty. I can also assure you that my strengths lie in other, more important areas.


----------



## Whiskers (19 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> One example only to keep it succinct
> Do you think the authors of the article I posted earlier (see abstract below) have a *conflict of interest* with the fluoride waste/by-product industry?* I see no evidence to suggest this*. You cannot honestly accuse these authors of having that kind of conflict of interest without a reason to do so other than "that's just what I think".
> 
> These guys went out to a bunch of clinics, charted the teeth, collected the data, provided the data in the article, and produced the results. How can you accuse them of manipulating that data.
> (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20415937)




I can only repeat what I said to you once before Billy, there is none so blind as those who do not want to see.

So, you didn't know that the University of Sydney, School of Dentistry received a donation from Colgate and (at least) $25,OOO per year from Colgate. 



> You reached this conclusion using a lot of different sources (websites, news articles etc) but none of them were good sound scientific studies.
> 'In time' should have elapsed by now. Fluoridation has been around for a while in some areas.




How does that old saying go; those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

*Manufacturers of Asbestos knew about the adverse health affects of asbestos since late in the 19th century. They knew about the research proving a carcenagenic link and concealed it for at least 30 years before the lid was blown off that conspiracy and cover up. *

*Hence my (and many others) interest in what data and research the fluoride/fluoridation industry has, but is not publishing, ie concealing from the public.*


----------



## Whiskers (19 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Poor spelling in there.
> 
> You can't understand that your stance is something that you ridiculed prior IN THE SAME POST? lol




I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, just inquisitive as to exactly what you meant before I shot you down in flames... and still the case.

If you could be specific about what you think "my stance" was that you think I "ridiculed prior IN THE SAME POST", I can be very specific.



> You cannot try to say *something* about cause and effect and then later in the post try to relate *something* to *another* without any reference to causation.




For example here, substitute "something" with the precise topic you mean and similarly with "another".


----------



## Knobby22 (19 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> In time fluoridation will likely be shown to be a worse than Asbestos, DDT, global warming and pink bats combined.




Wow, what about adding the Chernobyl disaster??

Who would have though, Colgate push fluoridation because they make the stuff and supply it in trace quantities to governments and put it in their toothpaste as well. They could take it out of their toothpaste and save money if they wanted to but they prefer to poison everyone. And the whole dental industry is in on the deal even though they know fluoridation is akin to asbestos.  How the doctors go along with it I don't know!! 

Wow! I want your mind, imagine the dreams you have.

Have you ever seen a Russian drink water?? Look at the following link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcHNYenN7OY


----------



## Whiskers (19 April 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Wow, what about adding the Chernobyl disaster??
> 
> Who would have though, Colgate push fluoridation because they make the stuff and supply it in trace quantities to governments and put it in their toothpaste as well. *And the whole dental industry is in on the deal* even though they know fluoridation is akin to asbestos. Wow! I want your mind, imagine the dreams you have.




Oh no, not the whole dental industry. 

There are a lot of dentists that don't promote fluoridation and some that don't even promote fluoride toothpaste.

There are a lot of people including dentists that just 'trust' the research and advice they are taught and given. They are not nearly as much taught/told about the history, and conflicts of interest. 

The main problem, that I addressed earlier in the thread, is that the fluoride/fluoridation industry was spawned out of huge environmental and legal problems industry like ALCOA had in disposing of their fluoride toxic waste from metal production etc. 

The notion of adding fluoride to the water supply originated because it was observed by ALCOA's scientists (not dentists or doctors) that people in the vicinity of these toxic fluoride environmental disasters had less teeth cavities. Colgate was early to allign with them to make a good profit on the back of such 'wonderful'  news/promotion.

The American Dental Association (ADA) had a very influential position in the US Public Health System at the time (detailed earlier in the thread) and soon became led by a former associate (Lawyer) of ALCOA. Just a few months ago the ADA was demoted to a much lower influence in the US Public Health System and complained bitterly (also detailed earlier).

*The long and short of it is the fluoride/fluoridation industry spawned from a huge toxic environmental, legal and credibility problem*. ALCOA and Colgate in particular threw a lot of money at promoting this new heath so called "nutrient" as the 'savior' of dental and public health. 

The conflict of interests are only recently being significantly whittled away (eg ADA) from which there can be expected to be less biased, even unbiased reports recognized by authorities in the coming years.

PS: Knobby, remember the asbestos industry managed to conceal research they had proving the link to cancer for over 30 years. That's why you and I should be concerned with researchers directly associated with the fluoride/fluoridation industry not publishing all relevant data they have such as the detail about delayed tooth eruption in fluoridated areas, the local areas in their Significant Caries Index (SiC) data, the relationship with induced Iodine deficiency to name just a few.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 April 2011)

There may be a case, but it is subtle.

Saying it comapres with DDT and Asbestos is just hysteria.


----------



## Whiskers (19 April 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> There may be a case, but it is subtle.
> 
> Saying it comapres with DDT and Asbestos is just hysteria.




Not sure what you mean by subtle, Knobby.

But, for me if I (and many others) play devils advocate, ie play safe and put discretion before valor and ask for some pertinent information and don't get the answer or data in question, but immediately get sprayed with vitriole... that doesn't do anything to bolster the credibility of the industry, on the contrary, it raises more questions about conflict of interest and the integrity of the information and advice we are given.

The other aspect that many of us reject is the compulsory (in Qld) fluoridation of the whole state. If individuals wish to use fluoride toothpaste, tablets, mouthwash etc, that their right and that's fine... but to compel the whole population to ingest fluoride where the most recognized benefit is in the topical application, and when a small minority of the population has the vast majority of the problem is a gross infringement of civil rights.

The acid test is if it's so good for us, why do the legislate to completely indemnify the gov and fluoridation businesses against any claim for damages.


----------



## Whiskers (19 April 2011)

Probably time to revisit;

(from start of thread)



Julia said:


> Knobby, this doesn't constitute a scientific study. I spent one month in an area where there is fluoride in the water. My teeth at the end of that time were so brown with fluorosis that they looked rotten. Not just a "faint, almost indiscernible mottling" as the pro fluoride lobby suggests, but dark, solid brown. Had to get them all veneered.
> 
> I had no idea what had happened until I went to the dentist on arriving home and he immediately deduced that I had been drinking fluoridated water.
> 
> This only affects a small proportion of the population, but it is a very real concern to those who are affected.




and...



Julia said:


> OK, I appreciate your moderate and reasonable attitude. I later realised that *at the time I was consuming a very large quantity of the wonderful citrus fruit (grapefruit and tangelos)* that were available there, and biting into segments, sucking out the juice from between the front teeth. Perhaps the unusual amount of acidity could have etched into the tooth enamel?
> 
> I have no idea, but you may have an opinion?
> 
> Btw, the problem was dealt with via veneers but that was quite an expense for teeth that had previously been white and quite OK.




To which BillyB suggested she couldn't have fluorosis, it must have been something else [post #524 & #527].

I'm not a dentist and have never seen or know much about Julia, but from what she has posted on this thread it's curious that in all Billy's attempted dismissing of fluorosis as Julia's condition, he didn't address the issue that she could have been an unknowing victim of fluoride/fluorosis as a contaminate in some food or other enviornmental exposure as a baby/child. 

Also, that grapefruit juice is well known to suck minerals out of tooth enamel making the enamel thiner and sometimes the teeth sensitive, but your teeth tend to restore mineralisation naturally. If Julia had some degree of pre existing fluorosis that was not particularly noticable, the grapefruit juice likely eroded the enamel enough to make such fluorosis more pronounced.

The older Dean index of fluorosis didn't clean and dry teeth before inspecting for fluorosis, but some later indicies require cleaning and drying of teeth to properly see fluorosis. Plenty of grapefruit juice would certainly have cleaned off the surface enamel to expose whatever was underneath.

Then, as we know by drinking fluoridated water, the remineralisation process is completely altered involving different elements and chemical reactions. 

I'm more interested in what Billy didn't say than what he did say about the process of remineralisation with fluoride.

I just want a dentist to walk us through the physiological processes, rather than just declaring its safe based on 'published' science, and for the greater good. 

In my business I'm all too proud to discuss the clean green detail of what I do. I've seen plenty of detail analysis of dentists (and doctors) explaining the intricate detail of what's not good about fluoride in the human metabolism, but the pro fluoride lobby tend to pretty short on detail and long on 'it's safe until proven unsafe' rhetoric.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (19 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> do you accept responsibility for lack of fluoridation on the negative health outcomes of people with poor dental health?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> ...




Gotta love your spin.

What I stated was that further investigation is needed, hence a suspension of fluoride use is required until more Independent and complete studies be conducted. For those like yourself that believe in the propaganda then Government supplied fluoride tablets will suffice.

This sounds to me to be a logical approach, doesn't infringe on anyone's rights and supports those that want to medicate themselves with an S6 poison, er, nutrient.


----------



## Billyb (19 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> So, you didn't know that the University of Sydney, School of Dentistry received a donation from Colgate and (at least) $25,OOO per year from Colgate.




But that doesn't mean that Colgate are paying them to do 'dodgy-under-the table' stuff with their research. That doesn't mean there's a cover up going on at the University of Sydney, Whiskers. It's just a way for Colgate to get their name out to the dentists and patients at the dental school. Like advertising. And it's an oopurtunity for the Uni to get funds. 
There's NO evidence to suggest what you are suggesting is going on. 

Colgate also gives me free toothpaste and toothbrushes.
The pharmaceutical companies give medical doctors lots of free stuff - it's doesn't mean they are covering something up just because they are trying to market themselves this way. 




Whiskers said:


> I can only repeat what I said to you once before Billy, there is none so blind as those who do not want to see.




This is what I don't get. See what exactly? I can't SEE any evidence to suggest dodgy stuff is going on between the University of Sydney and Colgate. And if I'm correct, then I am not blind, you are just seeing things, Whiskers.



Whiskers said:


> he didn't address the issue that she could have been an unknowing victim of fluoride/fluorosis as a contaminate in some food or other enviornmental exposure as a baby/child.
> Also, that grapefruit juice is well known to suck minerals out of tooth enamel making the enamel thiner and sometimes the teeth sensitive, but your teeth tend to restore mineralisation naturally. If Julia had some degree of pre existing fluorosis that was not particularly noticable, the grapefruit juice likely eroded the enamel enough to make such fluorosis more pronounced.




Few points, I list them by dot points so they are easy to understand
 1. If she has severe fluorosis like she described (brown mottled etc), it would have shown immediately as a child.  Enamel is very thin, if there is any darkness deep in the enamel I am sure it will still have shown as a child.
2. Buccal enamel does not become 'thinner or stripped away', because there is no attrition. It simply demineralises, and then becomes cavitated at a later stage
3. And If the enamel demineralises it becomes more opaque, therefore any underlying discoloration is probably going to show less not more!!
Therefore, your theory, as much as it is a good try, just doesn't add up. Severe fluorosis doesn't just expose it's self after the superficial enamel is demineralised by grapefruits. It shows up way before that.


Whiskers said:


> .
> 
> The older Dean index of fluorosis didn't clean and dry teeth before inspecting for fluorosis, but some later indicies require cleaning and drying of teeth to properly see fluorosis. Plenty of grapefruit juice would certainly have cleaned off the surface enamel to expose whatever was underneath.




They don't clean off the surface enamel, they just clean of plaque/calculus etc which may be hindering visibility. Obviously this will lead to higher findings of mild fluorosis. Severe fluorosis stands out without any cleaning/drying required.


OzWaveGuy said:


> Gotta love your spin.
> 
> What I stated was that further investigation is needed, hence a suspension of fluoride use is required until more Independent and complete studies be conducted.




This is the point Ozwaveguy. A;; the independent, complete good studies say it's safe
There's plenty of good evidence out there. And it all says this: Water fluoridation is safe for the body, it increases risk of fluorosis but significantly reduces dental disease.

There's NO independent, complete, good studies that I have yet seen that say's it's unsafe.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (19 April 2011)

Bill, you've created a new definition for a "spin class".


----------



## Whiskers (19 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> But that doesn't mean that Colgate are paying them to do 'dodgy-under-the table' stuff with their research. That doesn't mean there's a cover up going on at the University of Sydney, Whiskers. It's just a way for Colgate to get their name out to the dentists and patients at the dental school. Like advertising. And it's an oopurtunity for the Uni to get funds.
> There's NO evidence to suggest what you are suggesting is going on.




It's still a conflict of interest.



> Few points, I list them by dot points so they are easy to understand
> 1. If she has severe fluorosis like she described (brown mottled etc), it would have shown immediately as a child. Enamel is very thin, if there is any darkness deep in the enamel I am sure it will still have shown as a child.




The what-if scenerio I postulated was specifically that if the degree of fluorosis was not noticable as a baby/child.



> 2. Buccal enamel does not become 'thinner or stripped away', because there is no attrition. It simply demineralises, and then becomes cavitated at a later stage




Buy doesn't acidic conditions soften the enamel and make it prone to erosion? 

Isn't it recomended that you rinse your mouth with water after acidic drinks and food and delay brushing for an hour to avoid abrasively wearing the enamel away by brushing? 

Doesn't the mechanical action of brushing over time erode the enamel and reduce fluoride content?



> 3. And If the enamel demineralises it becomes more opaque, therefore any underlying discoloration is probably going to show less not more!!




Initially yes. But what about the effect of pH cycling. In this what-if scenerio (not necessairly Julia), could not the significant acidic juice and brushing be considered or at least have the effect of a lesion on the tooth enamel, then as fluoridated water and food started to come into the equation with pH cycling, the reminerilastion occurs mainly around the lesion (enamel) and draws mineral from deeper in the dentin, and if the dentin was already low in mineral but not quite noticable, it could now be very noticable?




> They don't clean off the surface enamel, they just clean of plaque/calculus etc which may be hindering visibility. Obviously this will lead to higher findings of mild fluorosis. Severe fluorosis stands out without any cleaning/drying required.




Well, that's what I meant... to clean off the surface of the enamel.


----------



## Billyb (19 April 2011)

Believe whatever you want Ozwave, In the meantime I've decided I'll use the best available evidence to form my belief which I can then communicate to my patients.

Also, if it's good in the opinion of the World health Organization, then that's another reason I'm happy

If people start producing high quality evidence to suggest otherwise, only then I'll change my mind.


----------



## DB008 (19 April 2011)

Interesting...



medicowallet said:


> Personally OWG, *I prefer to side with the WHO* instead of you, or perhaps you would like to provide a cost-benefit study which shows fluoridation is ineffective.




WHO Quotes Below


> 8.1.3.8 Dental effects
> 
> It has been recognized for over five decades that *fluoride may have both beneficial and potentially harmful effects on dental health. While the prevalence of dental caries is inversely related to a range of concentrations of fluoride in drinking-water consumed, the prevalence of dental fluorosis has been shown to be positively related to fluoride intake from many sources (Fejerskov et al., 1988, 1996).* Public health programmes seeking to maximize the beneficial effects of fluoride on dental health through the introduction of fluoridated drinking-water have, at the same time, strived to minimize its adverse fluorotic effects on teeth. Based upon the studies conducted by Dean and colleagues five decades ago, the "optimum" level of fluoride in drinking-water, associated with the maximum level of dental caries protection and minimum level of dental fluorosis, was considered to be approximately 1 mg/litre. *The effects of fluoride on dental health were examined by a WHO Expert Committee (WHO, 1994).*






> 1) Dental caries
> 
> Since the first reports by Dean and colleagues published in the 1930s, oral fluoride is still considered an effective means of reducing dental caries. Historically, populations consuming fluoridated drinking-water had a much lower prevalence of dental caries than did those consuming non-fluoridated drinking-water. *Over time, the difference in caries prevalence among those consuming fluoridated and non-fluoridated drinking-water has narrowed significantly. This apparent diminution in the cariostatic effectiveness of fluoridated drinking-water is likely attributable to a "diffusion" in which individuals consuming non-fluoridated drinking-water may consume significant amounts of beverages prepared in other locales with fluoridated drinking-water, as well as exposure to fluoride through the use of dental care products — mainly fluoridated toothpaste.* It has been estimated that whereas approximately 210 million individuals throughout the world consume drinking-water containing levels of fluoride considered adequate for the prevention of dental caries, approximately 500 million people use fluoridated toothpastes *(WHO, 1994)*.


----------



## DB008 (19 April 2011)

> 'Second Thoughts about Fluoride,' Reports Scientific American
> 
> NEW YORK, Jan. 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "Some recent studies suggest that
> over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth,
> ...




More on the link below;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/02/idUS108377+02-Jan-2008+PRN20080102"]http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/02/idUS108377+02-Jan-2008+PRN20080102[/URL]


----------



## Billyb (19 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Doesn't the mechanical action of brushing over time erode the enamel and reduce fluoride content?




Yes, over time generally meaning many years, probably decades. Julia said it occured over only one month.




Whiskers said:


> Initially yes. But what about the effect of pH cycling. In this what-if scenerio (not necessairly Julia), could not the significant acidic juice and brushing be considered or at least have the effect of a lesion on the tooth enamel, then as fluoridated water and food started to come into the equation with pH cycling, the reminerilastion occurs mainly around the lesion (enamel) and draws mineral from deeper in the dentin, and if the dentin was already low in mineral but not quite noticable, it could now be very noticable?




I'm not sure that I fully understand what you're saying, but I'm reading it as though you are saying the enamel remineralises by 'sucking out' mineral from the dentine. Where did you read or hear about this? In order to remineralise, enamel requires minerals from saliva and the tooth pellicle, however, it doesn't remineralise from the dentine. We can see this from SEM scans, which would show demineralised enamel remineralising from the outside-in, not the inside-out.


----------



## DB008 (19 April 2011)

Hexafluorosilicic acid is the inorganic compound with the formula H2SiF6. It is a product of the production of hydrogen fluoride and the production of phosphate fertilizers. The majority of the hexafluorosilicic acid is used for the production of aluminum metal. *Hexafluorosilicic acid is also commonly used for water fluoridation.*


*MSDS for dihydrogen hexaflorosilicate*

General

      Synonyms: hydrofluorosilicic acid, hexafluorosilicic acid, fluorosilicic acid, hydrogen hexafluorosilicate, silicofluoric acid
      Molecular formula: H2SiF6
      CAS No: 16961-83-4
      EINECS No: 241-034-8 

Physical data

      Appearance: colourless liquid; often supplied as a colourless solution in water
      Melting point:
      Boiling point: 108.5 C (as the pure liquid)
      Vapour density:
      Vapour pressure:
      Density (g cm-3): 1.32
      Flash point:
      Explosion limits:
      Autoignition temperature:
      Water solubility: soluble

Stability

      Stable in aqueous solution.

Toxicology

      Corrosive - causes burns. Harmful by ingestion, inhalation and through skin contact. May be fatal if swallowed. May cause serious eye damage.

      Risk phrases
      (The meaning of any risk phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
      R20 R21 R22 R34 R41.

Transport information

Personal protection

      Safety glasses, adequate ventilation.

      Safety phrases
      (The meaning of any safety phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
      S26 S27.


----------



## Julia (19 April 2011)

If you could all carry on your squabble without using me as a point of reference, I would appreciate it.

I started the thread long ago in good faith, simply asking for how I could successfully filter my town water supply to eliminate fluoride.  To this I received some genuine and helpful replies, as is usually the case on ASF.

I will probably tend to trust the opinion of the dentist who actually saw the problem with my teeth at the time, and before having the expense of veneers, over someone on the internet who has not seen and may not be fully aware of all the circumstances.

That said, I do not wish to be further engaged in the discussion about the effectiveness or otherwise of fluoride.
I am with the simple logic of OzWave Guy who is saying what I have all along, viz that those who want to use fluoride have the means of doing so as individuals.
I do not believe the rest of us should have any substance put into the water supply which is not necessary for providing cleanliness of that water, e.g. chlorine.

To do so is, imo, unethical and an infringement of individual rights.  That is all I'm concerned about.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (19 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> Believe whatever you want Ozwave, In the meantime I've decided I'll use the best available evidence to form my belief which I can then communicate to my patients.
> 
> Also, if it's good in the opinion of the World health Organization, then that's another reason I'm happy
> 
> If people start producing high quality evidence to suggest otherwise, only then I'll change my mind.




It's not about changing your mind  it's about looking after the health of the population - based on your lust for fluoride it appears that you would never admit anything was wrong even if the WHO came back and said it was bad in a "spinful" way.

Is this the same WHO that pushed the H1N1 scare with the vaccine companies to drive billions in profits? Yes, an unelected organization full of trust.


----------



## Billyb (19 April 2011)

Julia said:


> If you could all carry on your squabble without using me as a point of reference, I would appreciate it.




Of course, No problems.
(However this is a discussion forum - perhaps in future reconsider raising these sorts of issues if you don't want it discussed!)



Julia said:


> I will probably tend to trust the opinion of the dentist who actually saw the problem with my teeth at the time, and before having the expense of veneers, over someone on the internet who has not seen and may not be fully aware of all the circumstances.




Understandable



Julia said:


> To do so is, imo, unethical and an infringement of individual rights.  That is all I'm concerned about.




Yes well ethical arguments can go on forever and there is no right or wrong because we all have different beliefs when it comes to ethics. I believe it is unethical do do nothing when we have high decay rates and there is an option available with evidence to prove it's highly effective and highly  safe. Yes now you can see why ethical debates go in circles. Hence I prefer just to acknowledge that there is an ethical debate here and leave it at that.




OzWaveGuy said:


> It's not about changing your mind  it's about looking after the health of the population - based on your lust for fluoride it appears that you would never admit anything was wrong even if the WHO came back and said it was bad in a "spinful" way..




Absolutely not. If the evidence started saying that fluoridated water is dangerous, and WHO then took that point of view as well, then I would go with what the evidence and WHO says.

That's what Medicowallet and I have been saying all along...we will form our belief based on the latest and best data - which at the moment is saying it's safe and effective so that's what I'm going to stick with. Anything which says it's not safe seems to be rubbish research from what I've seen so far.


----------



## Julia (20 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> Of course, No problems.



Thank you.



> (However this is a discussion forum - perhaps in future reconsider raising these sorts of issues if you don't want it discussed!)



This is what my first post said:


> The Queensland government has announced it will put fluoride in the water supply from next year.
> 
> Quite apart from the moral issue of mass medicating the whole population, I cannot drink fluoridated water for various other health related reasons.
> 
> ...




Nothing wrong with that.  It is a perfectly legitimate enquiry on a forum which usually comes up with an answer to most questions, as it did in this case with responses about various types of filters.  

That it has descended into a rude rabble is not my responsibility.  I am simply asking that the ongoing argument should leave me personally out of it.


----------



## medicowallet (20 April 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Gotta love your spin.
> 
> What I stated was that further investigation is needed, hence a suspension of fluoride use is required until more Independent and complete studies be conducted. For those like yourself that believe in the propaganda then Government supplied fluoride tablets will suffice.
> 
> This sounds to me to be a logical approach, doesn't infringe on anyone's rights and supports those that want to medicate themselves with an S6 poison, er, nutrient.




How many more years of trials then?

Do you still breathe considering oxygen at 100% will kill you?

Stop giving me conspiracy theory dogma, I have been around long enough to understand trials and toxicity ( and being involved in studies too )

Your high school level arguments have no evidence.


Until Fluoridation has a negative cost-benefit analysis, I will continue to support it, as will all ethical health practitioners.


----------



## DB008 (20 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Personally OWG, *I prefer to side with the WHO* instead of you, or perhaps you would like to provide a cost-benefit study which shows fluoridation is ineffective.




Interesting...



> 8.1.3.8 Dental effects
> 
> 2) Dental fluorosis
> 
> ...


----------



## Billyb (20 April 2011)

DB008 said:


> Interesting...




Yes Dannyboy, we already know and the WHO has already acknowledged that there will be more dental fluorosis with water fluoridation - nothing new there.


----------



## Whiskers (21 April 2011)

Julia said:


> If you could all carry on your squabble without using me as a point of reference, I would appreciate it.




I'm doing my best Julia. 

I did adopt my writing style to 'third person' and (what-if) specifically to depersonalise the conversation and focus on the physiological process of fluoridation that the pro fluoridation lobby tend to avoid by relying on headline banners.

But unfortunately these guys don't seem to be very articulate in the english language and more particularly the theme of what is being said... but having said that the pro fluoridation campaign tends to be a deliberate personality and credibility attack, rather than freely providing all the scientific data and explanations of what their headline banners would have us believe is such compelling and indisputable data.

But having said all that I do apolagise for using your eralier post, since Billy trawled back to find it and attempt to descredit it, as bait to goad him into discussing some of the physiological processes of fluoride and fluoridation.

I hope we can continue to discuss the physiological prosesses objectively in the third person and what-if scenerios, that the population commonly encounter. 

Bty, I can understand people getting weary of the subject and getting on with their lives since the 'legal' process to implement compulsory fluoridation has been enacted... but I just got my second wind and changed tact a bit. More details later, maybe.


----------



## Whiskers (21 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> *Yes, over time generally meaning many years*, probably decades. Julia said it occured over only one month.




That's my point. As people age their enamel tends to erode and become thinner from brushing, chewing and other damage.



> *I'm not sure that I fully understand what you're saying*, but I'm reading it as though you are saying the enamel remineralises by 'sucking out' mineral from the dentine.




Billy, you are not familiar with pH cycling! It's a concept used extensively in the medical and agricultural sciences that I'm more familiar with.

*pH Cycling*: Maybe a bit simplistic but essentially it's the notion of the pH of a local environment (eg mouth saliva) being substantially influenced by strongly acidic (in this case) substances to cause a short term sharp reduction in pH which restores to normal and subsequently forced lower again, hence the term cycling.

I haven't studied this report, but a quick google search finds this on pH cycling; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14762502 

*



Where did you read or hear about this?
		
Click to expand...


*In a clinical dentistry book. I don't recall the exact title. Maybe it was more a specialist publication because it got into some pretty heavy detail pyhsiological analysis.



> In order to remineralise, enamel requires minerals from saliva and the tooth pellicle, however, it doesn't remineralise from the dentine. We can see this from SEM scans, which would show demineralised enamel remineralising from the outside-in, not the inside-out.




Firstly some easy to understand laymans explanations.

*Dental pellicle* is a protein film that forms on the surface enamel by selective binding of glycoproteins from saliva that prevents continuous deposition of salivary calcium phosphate. It forms in seconds after a tooth is cleaned. It is also protective to the tooth from the acids produced by oral microorganisms after consuming the available carbohydrates

*SEM*: Scanning Electron Microscope.

*pH Scale:* is the measure of the Hydrogen ion concentration to provide a measure of how acidity or alkalinity.



Billy, I think you are overlooking;
the effect of ingested fluoride, as in fluoridation,
that the fluoride atom is very small, and
the fluoride ion has a very strong electron bond, hence
it's ability to move through tissue easily, and
it's ability to easily displace some other elements/compounds, and
the effect of pH cycling with all the above.
I'm interested in further discussion once you familiarise yourself with this, that may be a bit over your head and more of a specialty.


----------



## Billyb (21 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> I'm doing my best Julia.
> 
> I did adopt my writing style to 'third person' and (what-if) specifically to depersonalise the conversation and focus on the physiological process of fluoridation that the pro fluoridation lobby tend to avoid by relying on headline banners.




Settle down Whiskers, you actively went back and picked out her posts and republished her posts with her name on it. 'Depersonalise it'...yeaahh right. Don't worry, that's the last I'll mention that issue, I just felt that much had to be said.

Anyways, after all that I hope you understand the processes a bit better now that we've gone through it a bit, but it seems this thing is going around in circles. I might summarise what I think so far:

1. All the best science is telling us water fluoridation is safe, effective, and cost-effective.

*2. Therefore, the concensus among the scientific, dental, and medical community at this point in time is that water fluoridation is safe, effective and cost-effective.*

3. So at the end of the day, it's up to the antifluoridists to find evidence or produce (*quality*) evidence if they think it's not safe, not effective or not cost-effective
*And, so far there doesn't seem to be any out there.*

4. Because there is currently no evidence to support their views, the anti-fluoridists are simply *speculating *- they think in the future some evidence will come out to prove it's unsafe. Speculation, that's all it is.

5. Lastly, there is an ethical debate, there are some who think it's unethical to make everyone's water fluoridated (even if it is safe in the literature). Well, I'd argue it's unethical that poor people have to wait 6 years to see a dentist and rich people can see one straight away. Ethics is very wishy-washy so we all can all have our opinions on that..


----------



## Billyb (21 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Billy, you are not familiar with pH cycling! It's a concept used extensively in the medical and agricultural sciences that I'm more familiar with.
> 
> ]




I do know what pH cycling is.

However, I don't know where you're going with all this. I don't want to fluff around too much about this, it doesn't need to be excessively technical. If you'd be so kind to make your point or argument clear and concise then I'll have something to direct my post toward.


----------



## Billyb (21 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> In a clinical dentistry book. I don't recall the exact title. Maybe it was more a specialist publication because it got into some pretty heavy detail pyhsiological analysis.
> 
> [/COLOR]




I would suggest that you post a reference up for that. In fact, the more references available, the better generally.


----------



## Whiskers (21 April 2011)

Billyb said:


> I do know what pH cycling is.
> 
> However, I don't know where you're going with all this. I don't want to fluff around too much about this, it doesn't need to be excessively technical.




No 'fluff', just discussing how fluoride alters the chemistry and remineralisation of our teeth.



> If you'd be so kind to make your point or argument clear and concise then I'll have something to direct my post toward.




My point is that you didn't acknowledge the effect of pH cycling in the context of a more volatile substance, 'fluoride' in the demineralising and remineralising of teeth.

Secondly, the affect of fluoridation on teeth and the holistic physiological effect that has on permenant teeth that has had little or no exposure to fluoridation in their development.


----------



## Billyb (21 April 2011)

Whiskers said:


> My point is that you didn't acknowledge the effect of pH cycling in the context of a more volatile substance, 'fluoride' in the demineralising and remineralising of teeth.




OK then. I will acknowledge your query.

Under normal conditions, the surface of the enamel consists of hydroxyapetite. Enamel that has been exposed to fluoride (eg thorugh fluoridated water) is fluoroapetitie. In the context of pH, the critical pH of fluoroapetitie is higher than that of hyroxyapetite. Hence it is more resistant to demineralisation.

Hope that answers your question


----------



## LifeChoices (23 April 2011)

It's good for ya teeth!


----------



## OzWaveGuy (1 May 2011)

Perfectly safe! Er, Fluoride is pharmaceutical grade, and, um, there are reports that the UK gov use that prove it is safe, er, even though the authors disagree....



Must go back to TV now to wait for next instruction....


----------



## sails (3 August 2012)

Interesting article:

Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal

An excerpt:



> "The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas," write Choi et al.
> 
> Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical "with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity."


----------



## DB008 (12 September 2013)

*Fluoridation win turns nasty*



> A hard-fought win to introduce fluoride to a city's water turned nasty this week when an anti-fluoride protester accosted NSW's Chief Medical Officer and threatened to attack her with the poison gas used in Syria.





http://www.6minutes.com.au/news/latest-news/fluoridationwinturnsnasty


----------



## DB008 (19 February 2016)

*Fluoride-free drinking water in Calgary leads to rise in kids' tooth decay, study indicates​*


> Tooth decay in children in Calgary has worsened since the city stopped adding fluoride to drinking water in 2011, according to a new study.
> 
> The study, published Wednesday in the journal Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, compared Grade 2 students in Calgary and Edmonton, which still adds fluoride to its drinking water.
> 
> ...






http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/tooth-decay-calgary-fluoride-water-1.3450616​


----------



## finnsk (20 February 2016)

Have not read the hole thread so don't know if somebody else have put this up.

Just thought I would add this to the discussion 
http://healthwyze.org/reports/69-the-dangers-of-tap-water
_The American Dental Association, the F.D.A., and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control all maintain that mercury, a cumulative toxic heavy metal, is perfectly safe to be embedded into your living teeth. Not surprisingly, they all also support the fluoridation of public water reservoirs under the guise of improving dental health. The American public has been mass-poisoned with fluoride for more than half a century. Fluoridation has been justified by claims that it produces dental health benefits, even though there has never been evidence that ingestion of it is beneficial. Conversely, there is overwhelming evidence indicating that ingested fluoride is a bio-accumulative poison that attacks the human body systemically, including the teeth. These facts were known long before fluoride was added to tap water._


----------



## orr (21 February 2016)

finnsk said:


> Have not read the hole thread so don't know if somebody else have put this up.
> 
> Just thought I would add this to the discussion
> http://healthwyze.org/reports/69-the-dangers-of-tap-water
> _The American Dental Association, the F.D.A., and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control all maintain that mercury, a cumulative toxic heavy metal, is perfectly safe to be embedded into your living teeth. Not surprisingly, they all also support the fluoridation of public water reservoirs under the guise of improving dental health. The American public has been mass-poisoned with fluoride for more than half a century. Fluoridation has been justified by claims that it produces dental health benefits, even though there has never been evidence that ingestion of it is beneficial. Conversely, there is overwhelming evidence indicating that ingested fluoride is a bio-accumulative poison that attacks the human body systemically, including the teeth. These facts were known long before fluoride was added to tap water._





Similar half baked conspiracy gibberish has been trotted out in the previous back pages. There seems to be never a complete lack of fools that subscribe to it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 February 2016)

I won't claim to know much about fluoride but commonsense tells me that adding mercury to the body should be treated with extreme caution given the well established toxicity of that material.


----------



## pixel (21 February 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> I won't claim to know much about fluoride but commonsense tells me that adding mercury to the body should be treated with extreme caution given the well established toxicity of that material.



It is also a well-established fact that sugary drinks and lack of oral hygiene are the main causes for tooth decay. Which does not, however, lead to the logical solution of limiting advertising and supply of such harmful substances. Instead, the easy way out is chosen: Force-feed another toxin to every body, regardless whether or not they're addicted to the stuff that causes its victims to lose their teeth. And there is no shortage of well-meaning fools that clobber inconvenient alternative opinions, discredit them as _half baked conspiracy gibberish _and cite some "greater common good" - read: Unlimited profits for Big Business.
For decades, tobacco companies, asbestos suppliers, petrol refineries, pubs and bottle shops, ... got away with the same attitude: *The greater the corporate profits, the greater the common good. *

I won't hold my breath, but not all hope may be lost that one day, the "gullible health nuts" that oppose being poisoned by fluorides, plastics, and other "improvements", manage to reverse the trend. They can possibly learn from the "climate hysterics" that switch from dirty to renewable energy.


----------



## orr (21 February 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> I won't claim to know much about fluoride but commonsense tells me that adding mercury to the body should be treated with extreme caution given the well established toxicity of that material.




I'll go back and do the reading on this again if I have to, But at this point it is my understanding that there is no human biological benefit to even the lowest levels of mercury exposure or other heavy metals such as Lead  or cadmium but considering that we've evolved over eons with these elements in the background a level of tolerance as a species would be a reasonable assumption.
As to fluoride, excess exposure(and what that is...is? do your own research)  leads to at least a condition known as fluorosis.  Point to me the occurrence of this in any population with a municipal fluoridated water supply. AT higher levels it becomes toxic, tell me something that at a high enough level that doesn't. As a trace element it is 'used'/ enables humans at least though a biologically evolved process to harden tooth enamel, it's done this for hundreds of thousands of years before the onslaught of capitalism or fizzy drinks. This was first observed and then understood through application of a thing call 'scientific method' which has developed prior to but has accelerated since the advent of the above mentioned on capitalist onslaught and will continue long past it or be subsumed with it .

My point is to conflate mercury(Hg) and fluoride is at once disingenuous and plays on the fears of the ill informed.

If there is a founded line of inquiry that does point to the human health cost of amalgam filings I seriously suggest your start the class action because there are some highly wealthy agencies to plunder. 'If'(big if) you can prove your case and probably a Nobel Prize and a place in history up there with Plank, Hoyle or Salk .


----------



## Tisme (23 February 2016)

orr said:


> I'll go back and do the reading on this again if I have to, But at this point it is my understanding that there is no human biological benefit to even the lowest levels of mercury exposure or other heavy metals such as Lead  or cadmium but considering that we've evolved over eons with these elements in the background a level of tolerance as a species would be a reasonable assumption.
> As to fluoride, excess exposure(and what that is...is? do your own research)  leads to at least a condition known as fluorosis.  Point to me the occurrence of this in any population with a municipal fluoridated water supply. AT higher levels it becomes toxic, tell me something that at a high enough level that doesn't. As a trace element it is 'used'/ enables humans at least though a biologically evolved process to harden tooth enamel, it's done this for hundreds of thousands of years before the onslaught of capitalism or fizzy drinks. This was first observed and then understood through application of a thing call 'scientific method' which has developed prior to but has accelerated since the advent of the above mentioned on capitalist onslaught and will continue long past it or be subsumed with it .
> 
> My point is to conflate mercury(Hg) and fluoride is at once disingenuous and plays on the fears of the ill informed.
> ...




I'm guessing an analogy of "if you drink too much water you'll drown" is a good way of saying "every thing in moderation". 

I remember being seconded to the water board and was surprised at how little the container holding the flouride at the pumping station was. I satisfied myself on the spot that even if the lot was accidentally dumped into the supply it surely couldn't be deleterious to health.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 February 2016)

orr said:


> My point is to conflate mercury(Hg) and fluoride is at once disingenuous and plays on the fears of the ill informed.




Agreed and I'm not suggesting otherwise (it was another post which linked the two).

Mercury - known to be highly toxic and no known benefits at any level in the human body. Adding it to fill teeth thus seems at least somewhat suspect as to risks.

Fluoride - known to be highly toxic but at low concentrations has been shown to produce a benefit in humans (dental health). Adding it to water supplies is thus a case of addressing one issue with a known benefit versus uncertain risks which may be associated with it.

So I'm reasonably happy with fluoride in the water but none to keen on putting mercury into the body unless someone can prove that it poses no risk. Surely there's something else we can use for dental fillings?


----------



## SirRumpole (23 February 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed and I'm not suggesting otherwise (it was another post which linked the two).
> 
> Mercury - known to be highly toxic and no known benefits at any level in the human body. Adding it to fill teeth thus seems at least somewhat suspect as to risks.
> 
> ...





I'm prepared to keep an open mind on flouride but I doubt if there have been long term studies examining incidence of various diseases in flouridated vs non flouridated areas, so it doesn't seem a scientific application, someone just decided it was good for teeth so everyone gets it, making it impossible to say whether its a carcinogen or has other harmful effects.


----------



## SmokeyGhost (23 February 2016)

http://www.cochrane.org/search/site/fluoride?f[0]=bundle%3Areview

then, I am not qualified in the issue of meta-analysis, so I'll go with the known science.


----------

