Fluoride

[medicowallet]

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

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]

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.



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.





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.

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]

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...

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!?

Are the NAA, HHS and EPA taking up conspiracies?

That's an easy yes or no answer.

 

[medicowallet]

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]

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.

 

[Whiskers]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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 fluoridated areas than now fluoridated areas in children.

http://www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/0801/m111623_v1_december2007.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]

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?

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]

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. (Beltrán-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]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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.