Fluoride

[Calliope]

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.
Fluoridation was designed by the military–industrial complex to protect the U.S. atomic weapons program from litigation.
Fluoridation was pioneered by a German chemical company to make people submissive to those in power.
Fluoridation was used in Russian prison camps and produces schizophrenia.
Fluoridation is backed by the aluminum or phosphate industries as a means of disposing of some of their industrial waste.
Fluoridation is a smokescreen to cover failure to provide dental care to the poor.
Fluoridation researchers are accused to be in the pay of corporate or political interests as part of the plot. Specific anti-fluoridation arguments change to match the spirit of the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

 

[OzWaveGuy]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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:
Safe – no identified harmful side effects
Effective – delivers proven decay reduction
Efficient – better than other methods of fluoride delivery
Cost-effective – benefits far outweigh the cost
Equitable – in that is transcends socioeconomic barriers that might prevent the use of other decay preventing products

Water fluoridation has been recommended, endorsed and promoted by many national and international medical and scientific organisations, including the World Health Organisation (WHO), US Centre for Disease Control (CDC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Dental Association.

Research into the toxicity of compounds used in fluoridating water has been carried out for the last 60 years. The overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence does not link water fluoridation at optimal levels (one part per million) to side effects such as bone fracture, cancer, and other health related problems.

In some European countries, water fluoridation is not practical because of very complex water systems without a single central point to add fluoride.

The fluoridation of community water supplies is an effective way to deliver fluoride to all members of the community, regardless of age, individual motivation, socioeconomic status or the availability of dental care. Water fluoridation has been a way of life for over fifty years in NSW; currently approximately 95% of the population in NSW is receiving water fluoridation. NSW Health remains committed to water fluoridation

I trust this information is of assistance to you. If you require any further information please contact Shanti Sivaneswaran, Principal Advisor, Centre for Oral Health Strategy NSW on (02) 8821 4300.


Yours sincerely
Dr Clive Wright

Chief Dental Officer, NSW Health

 

[pixel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Please, utilise the scientific studies available. .

Can you produce some?

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?

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]

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. "

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]

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. "

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,
"Children's teeth spoilt rotten".
"Toddlers as young as one are having general anaesthetics to remove or crown rotten
teeth."
FACT: (Take note Brisbane people)
Perth has been fluoridated since 1968 - a period of 36 years of compulsory
fluoridation, which makes fools of the fluoride "experts" in Brisbane. Each fluoridated Capital City in Australia is having the same problem with young
children's teeth, which highlights the erroneous fluoride propaganda published in
Brisbane."

"CHILD TEETH SURVEY: BRISBANE CAN SMILE
"Brisbane children's teeth are healthier than those in Melbourne, where they have
fluoride in the water supply, according to figures released from the Federal Health
Department.""The figures collected in a child dental health survey among primary school
pupils aged 5 to 13 show Melbourne children drank fluoridated water, but had
worse tooth decay than Brisbane children on non-fluoridated water."

"In fluoride-free Brisbane, children's teeth are healthier than those in
fluoridated Melbourne.
"The number of decayed, missing, indicated for extraction or filled teeth in Brisbane,
Perth and Adelaide was 1.1, compared with 1.3 in Melbourne for the same period."

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.

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?

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