Fluoride

[Whiskers]

Few comments
1. I haven't seen any of this 'disastrous fluorosis' that you keep referring to, yet. Only very mild cases (uncommonly), where it doesn't matter and it doesn't bother the patient. The benefits of less dental caries (from water fluoridation) easily outweighs this small issue. Dental caries FAR MORE problematic/expensive than mild fluorosis therefore benefit outweighs risk

I suspect you haven't seen any bad cases yet... and I hope we never get to the worst stages before our gov's see the light.

2. Please provide evidence for other health issues you refer to eg bone disease.

I'm surprised [no I'm not] they didn't teach you about this in dentistry school.

Start here. There are some links off there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_fluorosis

Regional Environment Division, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Ibaraki, Japan: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533102/

More links here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=fluoride bone disease china

Also a recent news link: http://www.voanews.com/english/news...d-to-Fluoride-Disease-in-China-105447638.html

 

[Billyb]

Billyb, I'm sure fluorosis can be quickly dismissed as insignificant by those who have not experienced it.

But for someone who has, having rotten looking brown teeth is immensely distressing.

Perhaps don't be quite so dismissive about something unless you've experienced the loss of self esteem and embarrassment incurred by significant fluorosis.

Well, I apologise if it's happened to you, but I assure you, the fluorosis risk here is taken WAY out of proportion. I see many patients with loss of self esteem due to tooth decay (basically everyday), but can't remember the last time fluorosis was the cause of loss of self esteem. Loss of self esteem due to dental decay =99.999%, loss of self esteem due to fluorosis = 0.001%. Hopefully those numbers put things into perspective for you - dental decay is a much bigger issue than fluorosis!!!.

Come on guys, if you wanna really argue against water fluoridation, bring on the bigger 'so called' issues. Otherwise this is just a pointless argument going in circles.

 

[Billyb]

I suspect you haven't seen any bad cases yet... and I hope we never get to the worst stages before our gov's see the light.

I'm surprised [no I'm not] they didn't teach you about this in dentistry school.

I mean real evidence to support the hypothesis that water fluoridation causes clinical bone disease, i.e research, peer reviewed journal articles etc.

If you can't find any, you need to rethink why you believe it to be so.

You may need to look into the hierarchy of evidence, start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence

I wont be convinced until I see real evidence , not some news article or wikipedia article that talks about skeletal fluorosis in general.

 

[Whiskers]

I mean real evidence to support the hypothesis that water fluoridation causes clinical bone disease, i.e research, peer reviewed journal articles etc.

If you can't find any, you need to rethink why you believe it to be so.

You may need to look into the hierarchy of evidence, start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence

I wont be convinced until I see real evidence , not some news article or wikipedia article that talks about skeletal fluorosis in general.

Billy, Billy, Billy... there are none so blind as those who do not want to see!!!

Follow the links even wiki will lead to peer reviewed journals if you scroll down to the references.

What, do you think ALL, even anecdotal references are conspiracies and not worth investigating?

PubMed was your favorite source before. The links I gave include several from PubMed about bone disease and fluorosis from excess fluorine/fluoride intake from various sources including water, fluoridation, food (high soil fluorine taken up by tea plants) and combustion of high fluorine/fluoride products.



You should know from your science subjects that:

• Fluorine is a very pervasive substance, the most reactive of all elements and no chemical substance is capable of freeing fluorine from any of its compounds.
• Fluorine compounds (fluorocarbons) once used in refrigeration, air conditioning and aerosol sprays caused damage to the earth's ozone layer and have been phased out.
• Fluorine/fluoride toxity is accumulative and irreversable.

It doesn't matter what form fluorine/fluorides are in, if it gets into your system it's cumulative effects become toxic and irreversable.

 

[derty]

[*]Fluorine is a very pervasive substance, the most reactive of all elements and no chemical substance is capable of freeing fluorine from any of its compounds.

So how can an element be the most reactive of all elements while at the same time bonding so tightly that no chemical substance is capable of freeing it from any of its compounds? (though not really sure what a chemical substances compound is)

You also say that 'Fluorine/fluoride toxity is accumulative and irreversable' and 'if it gets into your system it's cumulative effects become toxic and irreversable.' However we excrete F in our urine. Fluoride ion is readily absorbed by the stomach, intestines and excreted through urine. And studies have shown that at the usual levels of fluoridation of water the concentration of fluoride in urine is similar to its concentration in those persons' drinking water.




Just lurked though the last few pages of this thread and I have to concur with the arguments presented by medico and billyb. They seem to me to be by far the most logical. There is no argument that fluorine makes some deadly compounds and that at elevated concentrations it is toxic, though at the concentrations in the public water supply it is a beneficial additive.

If there were any firm evidence of significant health effects (other than occasional mild fluorosis) at the concentrations found in public waters then the lawyers would be coming out of the woodwork and we would have seen at least one successful class action.

 

[Whiskers]

So how can an element be the most reactive of all elements while at the same time bonding so tightly that no chemical substance is capable of freeing it from any of its compounds? (though not really sure what a chemical substances compound is) .

Hi derty, elemental fluorine is the most reactive element because of its very strong oxidization properties. You cannot release elemental fluorine (atom) from a compound (molecule) without electrolysis.

You also say that 'Fluorine/fluoride toxity is accumulative and irreversable' and 'if it gets into your system it's cumulative effects become toxic and irreversible.' However we excrete F in our urine. Fluoride ion is readily absorbed by the stomach, intestines and excreted through urine. And studies have shown that at the usual levels of fluoridation of water the concentration of fluoride in urine is similar to its concentration in those persons' drinking water.

Fluorine compounds do pass through our system in urine, but that part that is absorbed by the body stays absorbed and accumulates in various places particularly where it can easily displace iodine.

If there were any firm evidence of significant health effects (other than occasional mild fluorosis) at the concentrations found in public waters then the lawyers would be coming out of the woodwork and we would have seen at least one successful class action

This has been said before by medicowallet... BUT it's not true.

The Qld legislation at http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2008/08AC012.pdf specifically indemnifies the gov and potable water suppliers from any civil action under Part 9, Matters relating to liability and indemnity.


Provided they abide by the prescribed rate which is up to 1.5 mg/l in Qld there can be no cause of action against them. This is higher than the US rates where their research found too high fluorosis and double the .7 mg/l they are now recommending as a max.


But, Qld has already had a major excess fluoride incident (31 mg/l) as a result of negligence but guess what, they would not prosecute. http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/ehu/fluoride_investigate.pdf


I expect all govs are similar.

 

[Ruby]

Few comments
1. I haven't seen any of this 'disastrous fluorosis' that you keep referring to, yet. Only very mild cases (uncommonly), where it doesn't matter and it doesn't bother the patient.

Billy, I don't know where you are looking, but I see people with ugly brown mottled teeth every day. It does matter and it does bother people.

Well, I apologise if it's happened to you, but I assure you, the fluorosis risk here is taken WAY out of proportion. I see many patients with loss of self esteem due to tooth decay (basically everyday), but can't remember the last time fluorosis was the cause of loss of self esteem. Loss of self esteem due to dental decay =99.999%, loss of self esteem due to fluorosis = 0.001%. Hopefully those numbers put things into perspective for you - dental decay is a much bigger issue than fluorosis!!!.

Have you actually done a study to determine the loss of self-esteem due to fluorosis compared to the loss of self-esteem due to dental caries. Has it been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal? No?

I have suffered from severe dental caries since I was very young, and it has not been the cause of any loss of self esteem, because my front teeth are still intact and no-one can see the extent of the damage to the rest. I would have suffered extreme loss of self-esteem had my front teeth been brown and mottled. I know a number of young, otherwise very attractive women who suffer great loss of self esteem because they have dental fluorosis. To dismiss it as trivial and of no account is arrogant in the extreme.

 

[Billyb]

Billy, Billy, Billy... there are none so blind as those who do not want to see!!!

Follow the links even wiki will lead to peer reviewed journals if you scroll down to the references.

Let us go back to your original argument. You oppose water fluoridation because you believe by fluoridating our water supples at 1ppm, we will get side effects and certain diseases/illnesses. THIS (in italics) is what you need to provide evidence/references for, not other irrelevent things which are only indirectly related.

For example, you posted a reference about coal burning in china leading to fluorosis. Coal burning in China is not direct evidence that water fluoridation (at 1ppm) IN Australia causes the side effects and diseases that you talk about. This is irrelevent stuff and a telltale sign that you are struggling to find real evidence to back up your erroneous belief. You need to then question why you believe what you believe.

Let me give you a example of direct evidence to support my statement:
I believe water fluoridation at safe levels do not increase rates of bone cancer. Here is my references:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405037/?tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1052225/?tool=pmcentrez

BAM, I have given you direct evidence. This is how you need to present your evidence if you want to be convincing.

I suspect that perhaps you are just struggling to find evidence to support your belief..

Fluorine is a very pervasive substance, the most reactive of all elements and no chemical substance is capable of freeing fluorine from any of its compounds.

Firstly, fluoride is completely different to fluorine. Fluorine, pervasive? Are you kidding me? Fluorine doesn't exist on its own on earth!!!! Again, irrelevent to the direct topic, you are sidestepping and now posing strawmen and incorrect arguments.

Billy, I don't know where you are looking, but I see people with ugly brown mottled teeth every day. It does matter and it does bother people.

No offense, but unless you are a dentist, you would not be able to differentiate between mottling due to dental fluorosis and tooth decay.
I assure you, most (if not all) of the 'mottled teeth' you are seeing is dental decay, NOT fluorosis.

You really don't understand how rare severe fluorosis actually is in Australia. Very very rare, trust me. Come work with me for a day in the public system (I treat welfare patients), then you might believe me.

 

[Whiskers]

Let us go back to your original argument. You oppose water fluoridation because you believe by fluoridating our water supples at 1ppm, we will get side effects and certain diseases/illnesses. THIS (in italics) is what you need to provide evidence/references for, not other irrelevent things which are only indirectly related.

For example, you posted a reference about coal burning in china leading to fluorosis. Coal burning in China is not direct evidence that water fluoridation (at 1ppm) IN Australia causes the side effects and diseases that you talk about.

The (my) point is that Fluoridation is indiscriminate and collects everyone. It also compounds the dosage of fluoride per person via processed foods and drinks etc made from fluoridated water. The individual dosage of fluoride is further increased by other fluorine compound contaminates in the environment.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html

...thinks like pesticide residue, plants and animals absorb fluorine compounds as well as atmospheric fluorine (compound) pollution such as industry or localised coal bricks or other substances burnt coated with high fluorine compounds.

Even the World Health Organisation (WHO), recognises
Skeletal Fluorosis. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/fluorosis/en/

Fluorosis

The disease and how it affects people
​

Ingestion of excess fluoride, most commonly in drinking-water, can cause fluorosis which affects the teeth and bones. Moderate amounts lead to dental effects, but long-term ingestion of large amounts can lead to potentially severe skeletal problems...

Chronic high-level exposure to fluoride can lead to skeletal fluorosis. In skeletal fluorosis, fluoride accumulates in the bone progressively over many years. The early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, include stiffness and pain in the joints. In severe cases, the bone structure may change and ligaments may calcify, with resulting impairment of muscles and pain.

Acute high-level exposure to fluoride causes immediate effects of abdominal pain, excessive saliva, nausea and vomiting. Seizures and muscle spasms may also occur...
​

These are the symptoms widely reported in Pine Rivers (Brisbane) shortly after the introduction of fluoridation. The cause was eventually revealed as an excessive overdose of fluoride, 31 mg/l http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/docu...nvestigate.pdf

People affected by fluorosis are often exposed to multiple sources of fluoride, such as in food, water, air (due to gaseous industrial waste), and excessive use of toothpaste. However, drinking water is typically the most significant source. A person's diet, general state of health as well as the body's ability to dispose of fluoride all affect how the exposure to fluoride manifests itself. (Source: WHO)
​

Firstly, fluoride is completely different to fluorine.

Only slightly different. Fluoride is the ionic form of fluorine.

Fluorine, pervasive?

Pervasive: Having the quality or tendency to pervade or permeate.


Yes, Fluorine and many of it's compounds including Fluoride are very pervasive in the body.

• They react with calcium to cause hypocalcemia and
• displaces iodine which is responsible for thyroxine manufacture for the control of metabolic rate and essential to the normal development of the fetal nervous system to name a couple.

Are you kidding me? Fluorine doesn't exist on its own on earth!!!!

WRONG!

It does not occur naturally, but it is manufactured by electrolysis for numerous applications.

No offense, but unless you are a dentist, you would not be able to differentiate between mottling due to dental fluorosis and tooth decay.

No offense... but based on your poor understanding of the science of fluorine, I'm beginning to wonder if you can't tell the difference between decay and mild and severe fluorosis.

Actually decay is a natural consequence of severe fluorosis because the internal composition of tooth tissue is so badly weakened and the enamel cracked, by excess fluoride ingestion, that decay sets in.

 

[medicowallet]

Once this thread realises that fluorosis really is insignificant in the realms of the health benefits, some constructive debate may eventuate.

When people realise that there are some extremely disadvantaged people, less educated people and people with less initiative, who stare down the barrel of some horrendous, expensive to treat (to the taxpayer) disorders as the result of poor dental health the better.

Until then I shall continue to read the fluorosis debate, with the respect it deserves, whilst contemplating the real health burdens of society.

 

[Julia]

Well, I apologise if it's happened to you,

Where did I say it had happened to me?

I see many patients with loss of self esteem due to tooth decay (basically everyday),

So how have you established this loss of self esteem? Do you do a survey on the psyche of all your patients?
You later stated that you work in the public system.
After many years of working with disadvantaged people in the welfare system (I have previously commented that they were more distinguished by their rotten teeth than any other characteristic) I can think of dozens of reasons for their self esteem being low, not just their uncared for teeth.

but can't remember the last time fluorosis was the cause of loss of self esteem. Loss of self esteem due to dental decay =99.999%, loss of self esteem due to fluorosis = 0.001%. Hopefully those numbers put things into perspective for you - dental decay is a much bigger issue than fluorosis!!!.

Without wishing to discount your own anecdotal experience, I'd point out that it's just that, anecdotal. However, you may be able to quote valid research which has measured the comparative psychological unhappiness between caries and fluorosis.

And you continually ignore my fundamental objection to fluoride in our water supply, i.e. I am not arguing about whether it reduces decay or not, but my absolute objection is to the mass medication of a whole population.
The addition of chlorine is quite different. Without this water would not be safe to drink.

But that is a totally different matter from adding a compound to water, something we all must have every day, when the perfectly feasible option exists of those who want to consume it can do so by taking a fluoride supplement.

We all know that iodine helps to prevent goitre. If we are concerned about this we can take supplemental iodine, and use iodised salt. But using your argument re fluoride, we should be adding iodine to the water supply. And then maybe the fat soluble vitamins because surely that would be for the overall health of the population?
Where would it end?

 

[pixel]

I am not arguing about whether it reduces decay or not, but my absolute objection is to the mass medication of a whole population.
The addition of chlorine is quite different. Without this water would not be safe to drink.

But that is a totally different matter from adding a compound to water, something we all must have every day, when the perfectly feasible option exists of those who want to consume it can do so by taking a fluoride supplement.

We all know that iodine helps to prevent goitre. If we are concerned about this we can take supplemental iodine, and use iodised salt. But using your argument re fluoride, we should be adding iodine to the water supply. And then maybe the fat soluble vitamins because surely that would be for the overall health of the population?
Where would it end?

Finally one contribution that cuts to the core of this entire debate.
Thank you, Julia. You've summed it up.

 

[medicowallet]

We all know that iodine helps to prevent goitre. If we are concerned about this we can take supplemental iodine, and use iodised salt. But using your argument re fluoride, we should be adding iodine to the water supply. And then maybe the fat soluble vitamins because surely that would be for the overall health of the population?
Where would it end?

Problem with iodine is that there are genuine people that iodine in the diet may affect health, plus it may not be feasable to add it to water (chemistry/economics)

Fluoridation results in improved dental outcomes and better health.
People can also choose whether or not to drink the water, and some do so, the vast majority of people have no problem with it, so all we would be doing if we gave in to the miniscule vocal conspiracy theorists, is increasing health costs, and jeopardising people's health.

I restate that there are many things people have to do as determined by government, that they do not want to do.

for example there is no way I want to pay a carbon tax, but sure I will have to pay it if the Labor party, i mean greens, get their way.

 

[pixel]

if we gave in to the miniscule vocal conspiracy theorists, is increasing health costs, and jeopardising people's health.

So, that is the solution: Rather than taking note of legitimate objections, we're marginalised as "miniscule vocal conspiracy theorists".

Mate, earlier on I may have had some respect for you as a person, accepting that the two of us could have different opinions without ill will. Your discounting sincere arguments as "conspiracy theories" I find infuriating in the extreme. It seems I was wrong after all, and you are no different from the lipopygian chairwarming Big Brother types that "know best" and the unwashed masses better like the idea.

No further comment.

 

[Billyb]

Even the World Health Organisation (WHO), recognises
Skeletal Fluorosis. .

Mate, of course skeletal fluorosis is real, if you ingest lots of fluoride over time you will get it. But you are saying water fluoridation at safe levels (like in Australia) is causing it. You still haven't found any evidence to support your belief, and I'm underlining this sentence to show others that there is no evidence to back up what you are saying. As a matter of fact, the evidence shows the opposite: that there is no significant correlation between water fuoridation at 1ppm and bone disease.

I don't want other people reading your post and thinking what you are saying is true, when in actual fact it's false.

Yes, Fluorine and many of it's compounds including Fluoride are very pervasive in the body.

This is off topic and irrelevent so I'm not gonna go into much detail on this, except to say go back to your post, you will see you talked about fluorine as an element, fluorine as an element does not exist naturally on earth and is actually a gas.

Where did I say it had happened to me?

And you continually ignore my fundamental objection to fluoride in our water supply, i.e. I am not arguing about whether it reduces decay or not, but my absolute objection is to the mass medication of a whole population.

I agree with another poster that you've pointed the debate in the right direction there. The argument against fluoridation has a leg to stand in in the ethical arena, much more so than in the scientific arena.

 

[Billyb]

Your discounting sincere arguments as "conspiracy theories" I find infuriating in the extreme.

No further comment.

Show me a (good) study that shows water fluoridation at concentrations used in Australia is causing bone disease, or cancer, or allegies, or whatever else people claim it causes. If someone can't prove things like that, then they shouldn't claim it to be true. Otherwise they are misleading people.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I see we're back on to the "show me some studies...." lap again. Plenty of links from gov and private orgs peppered throughout this thread.

My concerns with fluoride are simple:

• Fluoride is a poison and not a nutrient as some on this thread imply.
• There is no way for any supplier of water who places usually between 0.7-1.2 mg/L of fluoride has any idea of how much fluoride I ingest from other sources each day. It is therefore impossible for any supplier to provide a guarantee that I won't exceed supposedly "safe" levels and nor will they have any idea how long I may be exceeding those levels.
• I want choice of clean water

The case is simple - remove fluoride and for those trying to convince others that fluoride is a nutrient - go get some fluoride tablets and pop them when you feel a need.

I wonder if water suppliers who contaminate their product with fluoride and claim it's safe as houses are willing under Oath, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury document that fluoride poses no threat whatsoever? Anyone want to send a lawful notice to their local water authority? I'm happy to post a template

 

[Julia]

[*]There is no way for any supplier of water who places usually between 0.7-1.2 mg/L of fluoride has any idea of how much fluoride I ingest from other sources each day. It is therefore impossible for any supplier to provide a guarantee that I won't exceed supposedly "safe" levels and nor will they have any idea how long I may be exceeding those levels.

Not to mention the fact that the 'authorities' who are placing fluoride in the water have, even in the short time since its introduction, got the dose wrong!

 

[Whiskers]

...there is no significant correlation between water fuoridation at 1ppm and bone disease.

Again, another understatement is better than a denial.

This is off topic and irrelevent so I'm not gonna go into much detail on this, except to say go back to your post, you will see you talked about fluorine as an element, fluorine as an element does not exist naturally on earth and is actually a gas.

Not off topic at all. You earlier made the incorrect statement that fluorine is not found on earth and I corrected that. The natural form of fluorine, the compound fluorite, is widely processed into other fluorine compounds like hydrogen fluoride which is used in Sodium Fluoride tablets, toothpaste and fluoridation.

I agree with another poster that you've pointed the debate in the right direction there. The argument against fluoridation has a leg to stand in in the ethical arena, much more so than in the scientific arena.

Yes indeed, so lets look at the ethical history of fluoridation.

Natural fluorite or it's synthetic cousin is used in aluminum and steel manufacture among other applications.

The most ethical point is that ever since ALCOA started covering up it's highly toxic fluoride emissions from it's US aluminum plants mid 1900's for which it was later prosecuted, it's scientist (not a doctor or dentist) started advocating fluoridation of water supplies on claims it effectively reduces tooth decay. Hell, it was an efficient way of dispersing their toxic concentrations of industrial waste.

ALCOA's lawyer (Ewing I think his name was) became head of the US Public Health Service... and guess what, the fluoridation industry boomed.

Hence my great pleasure at the removal of the American Dental Association (one of the last organisations infiltrated by ALCOA, with much influence) from any significant decision making authority in the US Public Health System. Why, because the early public fluoridation experiments were carried out on unknowing school children and their parents.

In summary the history of fluoridation is ethically corrupted both scientifically, administratively and politically.

In Qld we've recently had a politician convicted taking kick backs from industry. I'm sure there are more out there (including public servants) getting kick backs from and including fluoride polluting industries.

So you can see why anyone with an open mind is against involuntary public mass medication.

In case I've missed something, what are your ethical concerns?

Show me a (good) study that shows water fluoridation at concentrations used in Australia is causing bone disease, or cancer, or allegies, or whatever else people claim it causes. If someone can't prove things like that, then they shouldn't claim it to be true. Otherwise they are misleading people.

Billy mate... the proof is from US data where they have been doing it longer than we have.

Why do we have to wait for the proof to materialise in Australia, when the research I showed you from the US for dropping the rate to .7 mgl max, proves that fluoridation of concentrations regulated from .7mg/l to 1.2mg/l in the US, for longer than Aus has been fluoridating, are on balance detremental to dental health, the health budgets and community sentiment.

Some Aus states fluoridate over 1.2 mg/l... Queensland is allowing up to 1.5 mg/l with it's roll out of fluoridation... but I guess we may have more fluoride waste from industry to get rid of!

 

[Billyb]

Again, another understatement is better than a denial.
Why do we have to wait for the proof to materialise in Australia, when the research I showed you from the US for dropping the rate to .7 mgl max, proves that fluoridation of concentrations regulated from .7mg/l to 1.2mg/l in the US, for longer than Aus has been fluoridating, are on balance detremental to dental health, the health budgets and community sentiment.

You haven't provided one credible piece of evidence to show fluoridation (at the concentrations done in Australia) cause side effects such as bone disease or cancer.

All your USA article says is that in the opinion of the HHS, the optimal concentration of fluoride (to minimise fluorosis) is about 0.7-1.2ppm. Fair 'nough. They still say fluoridated water is a good thing, at the correct concentration, which we all knew already anyway.

If you want to argue that water fluoridation is ethically wrong because of autonomy reasons, then that's fair enough and I accept that as your (fair) opinion. But when you are arguing about the science (health effects) of water fluoridation without any evidence to support your claims, that's just misleading people.