Fluoride

[Julia]

Whiskers, could you please clear your In Box.
J.

 

[Whiskers]

Whiskers, could you please clear your In Box.
J.

Just done it.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

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.


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.

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]

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.


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.

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]

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?



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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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 overriding goal of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to reverse a slow rise in fluorosis, which leads to cracks in the enamel and discoloration of the teeth. In extreme cases, it also may adversely affect bone, increasing fracture risk...

HHS proposes to lower its recommended optimal level for community water fluoridation from a range of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L to the single figure at the lower end ”” 0.7 mg/L.
http://natmednews.posterous.com/hhs-recommends-lower-fluoride-levels-in-drink

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.​

● The contribution of residential tap water to total ingested fluoride is lower that it was in the past.​

● Use of fluoridated water for commercial beverage production has likely resulted in
increased dietary fluoride in purchased beverages, adding to the risk for over-exposure.​

● The increase of fluoride in solid foods because of fluoridated commercial process water
is more variable than that for beverages.​

● Incidental toothpaste ingestion is an important source of fluoride exposure in children up to about 4 years of age. However, use of fluoridated toothpaste is not recommended for children under age 2 according to FDA guidance and package labeling suggesting the
need for greater parental awareness of the FDA (2009) recommendations.​

● Ambient air, soils, and sulfuryl fluoride residues in foods are minor contributions to total fluoride exposure. ​

Based on the data collected and evaluated by the OW, it is likely that most children, even those that live in fluoridated communities, can be over-exposed to fluoride at least occasionally.​

http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/Fluoridereport.pdf

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

But you do continue to join the debate, despite...



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.

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]

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

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]

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.