Fluoride

[Billyb]

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]

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

Fluoridated water is a very effective public health measure (strong evidence for this)...

Evidence please

 

[DB008]

A Dentist debunks a common fluoride myth.




(I think l've posted this before)
Doctor Exposes Fluoride as Poison

 

[medicowallet]

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........



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.


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?


There are plenty referenced in this thread and on the "Fire Water" video

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]

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]

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?

• 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...

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]

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]

And from Wiki.

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

Sweden

In 1952, Norrköping 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...

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

What an interesting concept!! How I would love to see it.

 

[Ferret]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

Thank you for sharing too Ferret... but I'm curious about a few things:

1. How you know you have no negative side effects?
2. How do you know you dental health was attributed to fluoride and not good diet and dental hygene?
3. 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?

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?

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?

 

[Ferret]

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!

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.

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]

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.