Fluoride

[Billyb]

This is a misinterpretation of what I said. I wasn't referring to any 'facts' about fluoride. I don't doubt that it has been shown to reduce dental decay. My objection is on the basis of any government adding anything to the water supply which is not required for simply keeping that water clean, e.g. chlorine.

Yes, I accidentally misinterpreted what you said. My bad.

I respect your above argument because I understand and appreciate the ethical argument of fluoride. You don't deliberately go on a spree and post false information (and claiming it to be fact) to sway people. You had a misunderstanding about the aetiology of fluorosis, but once someone told you the science behind it you accepted it instead of arguing for the sake of arguing. There is a valid argument that the addition of fluoride may be a violation of autonomy (although IMO the advantages far outweigh this small disadvantage) so the ethical argument is acceptable as far as I'm concerned. I can appreciate your argument, even though I don't fully agree with it.

Contrast the above quote with Whiskers. No matter how much scientific evidence is given to him, he just ignores it and posts rubbish (non-scientific) information to rebut it. I think he doesn't actually care about the facts, he just wants to win this pointless argument and maintain his narrow point of view. I don't post to argue with these sort of people, I post so that other people don't read his posts and get the wrong information.

 

[Billyb]

Yes, the methodology!

It's interesting that most US reports (esp. by dentists) use the 'Dean' standard of measure for carries created back in the mid 1900's. Dean didn't count fluorosis victims unless they had 2 or more teeth affected by fluorosis.

Fluorosis is a bilateral disease.
ie at least 2 teeth would be affected usually. Clearly any study looking into fluorosis would therefore look for at least 2 affected teeth.

This is more evidence for others to see that you don't know what you're talking about, but you are awfully good at pretending to know what you're talking about. I can sniff it out like a dog because this is my area of expertise, other's cant but at least I can point it out to them.

I will not be surprised if somehow you debate this with me, even though what I'm saying is the latest knowledge that is taught to dental students at dental school and the latest knowledge which I have in my peadiatric dentistry textbook in front of me, and also matches my own personal clinical findings.

As I pointed out previously, the US has officially recognised reports, although not mainstream yet, because of the corrupted influence of the US ADA, that black Americans are twice as susceptable to fluorosis, at least. We know race/genes have a huge effect on other mineral uptake and disease rates, BUT...

What research mate? Show it to us.

The latest evidence is clearly saying that fluoridation is distrubiting Fluoride unevenly right through the food chain with an increasing multiplier effect especially on the young and more cumulative effect on the ageing. The US is recommending to lower fluoridation rates to the lower of the range, .7mg/l.

What evidence says this mate? Show it to us.

The people who were born as fluoridation was at it's peak in the US are ageing and starting to cost the health system a lot of money from a range of poor quality and toxic food inputs, including fluoridation.

What research said this? Show it to us.

 

[Julia]

I respect your above argument because I understand and appreciate the ethical argument of fluoride. You don't deliberately go on a spree and post false information (and claiming it to be fact) to sway people. You had a misunderstanding about the aetiology of fluorosis, but once someone told you the science behind it you accepted it instead of arguing for the sake of arguing.

Oh dear, I didn't want to get into any arguments on this thread and have simply apologised for my unnecessary picking up of a capital letter to denote superiority.

But at no stage have I conceded that I had any misunderstanding about fluorosis or anything else, and I would suggest that the diagnosis of a dentist who actually saw the condition and made the diagnosis will be preferable to an opinion from an anonymous person in an internet forum who was never able to have seen the condition of the then teeth.

And if my simple statement that I accept that fluoride will reduce dental caries is being interpreted as my 'acceptance of the science' (horrible association of climate change here!) then I will withdraw it. I have simply said that I accept that by hardening the teeth, caries will likely be reduced, but this acceptance should not be interpreted as my agreement that any side effects, proven or suggested, are so insignificant as to therefore justify putting fluoride in the water system.

 

[Billyb]

And if my simple statement that I accept that fluoride will reduce dental caries is being interpreted as my 'acceptance of the science' (horrible association of climate change here!) then I will withdraw it. I have simply said that I accept that by hardening the teeth, caries will likely be reduced, but this acceptance should not be interpreted as my agreement that any side effects, proven or suggested, are so insignificant as to therefore justify putting fluoride in the water system.

That's fine. I have no problem with what you believe because you don't try so hard to change everyone else's mind about it by posting false/innacurate/misleading info.

But at no stage have I conceded that I had any misunderstanding about fluorosis or anything else, and I would suggest that the diagnosis of a dentist who actually saw the condition and made the diagnosis will be preferable to an opinion from an anonymous person in an internet forum who was never able to have seen the condition of the then teeth.

You're free to believe what you believe and I don't blame you for trusting your dentist's diagnosis over an anonymous internet poster like me. I can't tell you what condition you have because I haven't seen your mouth. What I can tell you is that fluorosis develops while the teeth are developing (i.e when you are a child) so it's not possible to 'acquire it' late in life by simply visiting a fluoridated town for one month.
Just letting you know, Julia...you're free to dismiss what I say if you wish (but you'd be dismissing a whole profession and body of evidence as well).

 

[Julia]

You're free to believe what you believe and I don't blame you for trusting your dentist's diagnosis over an anonymous internet poster like me. I can't tell you what condition you have because I haven't seen your mouth. What I can tell you is that fluorosis develops while the teeth are developing (i.e when you are a child) so it's not possible to 'acquire it' late in life by simply visiting a fluoridated town for one month.
Just letting you know, Julia...you're free to dismiss what I say if you wish (but you'd be dismissing a whole profession and body of evidence as well).

OK, I appreciate your moderate and reasonable attitude. I later realised that at the time I was consuming a very large quantity of the wonderful citrus fruit (grapefruit and tangelos) that were available there, and biting into segments, sucking out the juice from between the front teeth. Perhaps the unusual amount of acidity could have etched into the tooth enamel?

I have no idea, but you may have an opinion?

Btw, the problem was dealt with via veneers but that was quite an expense for teeth that had previously been white and quite OK.

 

[Whiskers]

Fluorosis is a bilateral disease.

Why do you use the word "disease" when it is a 'condition' caused by fluoride, the hypomineralization (undermineralisation) of tooth enamel resulting in greater porosity of tooth enamel.

I suppose it's an effective tactic to misrepresent the true cause of fluorosis.

ie at least 2 teeth would be affected usually. Clearly any study looking into fluorosis would therefore look for at least 2 affected teeth.

So why do you think the Dean index is better and more reliable than the TSIF index which is accepted as a better index?

Originally Posted by Whiskers

As I pointed out previously, the US has officially recognised reports, although not mainstream yet, because of the corrupted influence of the US ADA, that black Americans are twice as susceptable to fluorosis, at least. We know race/genes have a huge effect on other mineral uptake and disease rates, BUT...

What research mate? Show it to us.

What, you don't know about this?

I already have. It's in the links I provided you.

What evidence says this mate? Show it to us.

Ditto

What research said this? Show it to us.

Ditto... but I'll revisit shortly, after I deal with the 'severity' of fluorosis.

Billy, how would you rate the degree of this fluorosis?

 

[Billyb]

Perhaps the unusual amount of acidity could have etched into the tooth enamel?

Possibly. Especially if the discoloration was isolated mainly to the interproximal (inbetween teeth and side of teeth) areas. There are a lot of potential factors at play and as you know without seeing your mouth I could only guess and I could be wrong. But never mind, at least you have nice veneers now instead ☺

Why do you use the word "disease" when it is a 'condition' caused by fluoride

It really doesn't matter, some people call it a disease (including WHO).

:
So why do you think the Dean index is better and more reliable than the TSIF index which is accepted as a better index?

Not relevant Whiskers. That’s a question for the fluorosis researchers. I don’t claim to be an expert at fluorosis indices, because its irrelevant to clinical practice. No one here understands it (or cares about it) either so it would be a waste of my time to talk about it.

Billy, how would you rate the degree of this fluorosis?

This is not a dentistry exam my friend, me answering that question wont help this debate. I will change your question to a more direct question which people here will find more useful:

Was that condition in the photo caused by water fluoridation like in QLD?

 

[Whiskers]

It really doesn't matter, some people call it a disease (including WHO).

Well, since you are dodging around the point and avoiding answering questions with semantics, it does matter to the question of the integrity of the case for fluoridation.

WHO tends to take it's lead from the researchers... who predominately came from the USA and that corrupted AlCOA and ADA fluoridation research base.

Condition is more accurately attributed to an unhealthy state, such as 'a progressive condition'... getting better or worse, loosing weight, gaining weight etc. People tend to relate to something like a burn, broken leg or overdosing medication or swallowing poison as a condition.

Disease is more characterised by illness with typical symptoms, associated with damage or infection to our body... like diabetes, osteoporosis, cholera etc.

Isn't fluorosis (from fluoridation) a condition like overdosing medication or swallowing poison?

Please provide a better definition if you disagree with mine.

Originally Posted by Whiskers
So why do you think the Dean index is better and more reliable than the TSIF index which is accepted as a better index?

Not relevant Whiskers. That’s a question for the fluorosis researchers. I don’t claim to be an expert at fluorosis indices, because its irrelevant to clinical practice.

But you are loudly applauding some research over others! Don't you want to know that the foundation for their analysis is accurate and reliable?

So, is it fair to say that you have no understanding of the research terms of reference and protocols, you just accept that advice from 'your' peers without really understanding it.

Oh, you "don’t claim to be an expert at fluorosis indices"... but you keep regurgitating that there is no serious fluorosis in 'legal' fluoridation.

No one here understands it (or cares about it) either so it would be a waste of my time to talk about it.

That's mighty ignorant of you, when the majority of posters are questioning the integrity of the science and your assertion that certain science is true and others that you disagree with are nothing but conspiracy theories.

This is not a dentistry exam my friend, me answering that question wont help this debate. I will change your question to a more direct question which people here will find more useful:

Was that condition in the photo caused by water fluoridation like in QLD?

Oh yes, it is an examination of your assessment of varies degrees of fluorosis.

The photo is a simple picture to gauge your index of the severity of fluorosis.

You, or your profession does have pictorial illustrations of the various degree of fluorosis don't you... or is it still standard practice to dismiss all fluorosis as 'minor cosmetic and not a health condition' as was the official line by pro fluoridation dentistry until more recently?

Ok, you provide your own pictures of minor, mild and severe fluorosis so we can see if we are all on the same page.

As you know, Qld is still rolling out fluoridation, started a couple of years ago and another year to go to complete. But what people are looking to is the historical research from overseas that shows what can and will happen here in time, at the .8 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l legislated fluoridation rate here in Qld.

Bty, I will come back to those other issues once we clarify your semantics about fluorosis.

 

[Billyb]

Please provide a better definition if you disagree with mine.

I don't disagree with you. I don't mind if you call it condition or disease, I wont argue with either. It's not important.

But you are loudly applauding some research over others! Don't you want to know that the foundation for their analysis is accurate and reliable?

Yes. And I am much more happy to talk about fluorosis indices when we are discussing it in context with a particular research article (i.e one that you post here) that you want to discuss the methodology of. Otherwise we're both wasting our time.

your assertion that certain science is true and others that you disagree with are nothing but conspiracy theories.

Which science are you talking about matey. I haven't seen you post up one peer-reviewed scientific research article yet. I'm giving you a chance matey, if you provide one example to back you up and it's good research, I'll concur and agree with it. The problem is that you haven't found anything. If you don't know what peer-reviewed research is, then look it up on Google.

 

[Billyb]

As you know, Qld is still rolling out fluoridation, started a couple of years ago and another year to go to complete. But what people are looking to is the historical research from overseas that shows what can and will happen here in time, at the .8 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l legislated fluoridation rate here in Qld.

You do not understand the legislation and guidelines.

I will correct you again because I am nice. The QLD legislation says that the average concentration over a quarter cannot exceed 0.9mg/L. This is within the safe range that you yourself said was optimal. The 1.5mg/L refers only to the maximum concentration in any single instant in time, do not get too hung up over it, that is why 1.5mg/L it is not even mentioned in the fluoridation legislation.

I refer you to section 5.1.1 and 5.3.1 of the Fluoridation code of practice which clearly states:

“The fluoridation dosing facility operator should ensure the fluoridated water complies with the prescribed concentration ( ±0.1mg/L) at least 95% of the time”​

“If fluoridated water leaving the fluoride dosing facility has a fluoride concentration greater than 0.3 mg/L above the prescribed fluoride concentration the fluoride dosing facility should be shut down immediately, the treatment plant supervisor should be notified and the cause of the elevated concentration should be investigated and rectified before recommencing dosing”
​

What does this mean in Layman's terms you ask? it means only 5% of the time can the concentration exceed 0.9mg/L (0.8 + 0.1). It also means the plant would be shut down immediately (and investigated)when it reaches 1.1mg/L (0.8 + 0.3).

Please stop arguing about the QLD legislation. You do not understand them well yet. Please read them again, and also read the Code of Practice.

 

[Whiskers]

You do not understand the legislation and guidelines.

I'm afraid you don't understand either, the legislation or the guidelines.

I will correct you again because I am nice.

I'm afraid you are neither correct or nice... matey!

I refer you to section 5.1.1 and 5.3.1 of the Fluoridation code of practice which clearly states:

“The fluoridation dosing facility operator should ensure the fluoridated water complies with the prescribed concentration ( ±0.1mg/L) at least 95% of the time”
​

“If fluoridated water leaving the fluoride dosing facility has a fluoride concentration greater than 0.3 mg/L above the prescribed fluoride concentration the fluoride dosing facility should be shut down immediately, the treatment plant supervisor should be notified and the cause of the elevated concentration should be investigated and rectified before recommencing dosing”
​

What you keep missing matey... is the legal meaning or force of the terminology in the Code of Conduct.

"must" implies that there is a legislative requirement for the procedure or equipment.

"should" implies that the procedure or equipment is consistent with the best practice approach detailed in the Code.

You will notice that Queensland Health only recommends not requires that all performance criteria and minimum standards detailed in the Code be achieved at all times.

The bottom line is "should" has no force in law or from Qld Health.

What does this mean in Layman's terms you ask? it means only 5% of the time can the concentration exceed 0.9mg/L (0.8 + 0.1). It also means the plant would be shut down immediately (and investigated)when it reaches 1.1mg/L (0.8 + 0.3).

You are quoting these numbers from the 'Code of Conduct'. They do not have the force of law as explained above with the meaning of "should" in the Terminology section. The 'Legislation' that I quoted earlier regulated the minimum quarterly daily average fluoridation rate between .8 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l.

Please stop arguing about the QLD legislation. You do not understand them well yet. Please read them again, and also read the Code of Practice.

Just LOL LOL LOL

Billy, matey I've snipped the relevant paragraphs that provide the meaning of the terms in the Code of Conduct below... as well as the investigation Report of the Fluoridation Overdose where the investigator summerised the legal requirement.

I've also provided the links so people can check what I say for themselves. Something you continually refuse to do while spluttering your misinterpreted legal nonsense.

http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/ehu/fluoride_codepractice.pdf

http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/ehu/fluoride_investigate.pdf

 

[Whiskers]

C'mon Billy... just post the fluorosis photos that you and your profession use to illustrate the degree of fluorosis. There must be some in that text book you had the other night eh?

By the way, how long have you been out of med school... or are you using an antique text book?

 

[medicowallet]

By the way, how long have you been out of med school... or are you using an antique text book?

Even though they are doctors, they do not go to med school

 

[Billyb]

Wow, you really do have too much free time....

The bottom line is "should" has no force in law or from Qld Health.

Actually, the bottom line is that the code of practice means that the water suppliers will follow the code to ensure concentrations are kept at 0.8-1.1mg/L. Unless of course they deliberately go out and disobey the code to harm us, which you may choose to believe if you wish to.

 

[Whiskers]

Even though they are doctors, they do not go to med school

Well thanks for that doc. I thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and patronize him a bit.

I'm not sure what he is... he says he's a dentist, but he also alluded to being some sort of specialist or having a specialty, earlier... maybe a professor

Nah, he's not that smart. He don't know when to give up a bad joke.

 

[Whiskers]

Wow, you really do have too much free time....



Actually, the bottom line is that the code of practice means that the water suppliers will follow the code to ensure concentrations are kept at 0.8-1.1mg/L. Unless of course they deliberately go out and disobey the code to harm us, which you may choose to believe if you wish to.

Gaud damit, matey... you're a glutten for punishment!

"in some instances the fluoride dosing facility and reticulation system will be operated by different entities"
[from the code of practice]


...and this code is just a code of best practice. It's self explinatory within the document that it's not enforcable... I repeat again, that Queensland Health only recommends not requires that all performance criteria and minimum standards detailed in the Code be achieved at all times.




But, Billy can you please post them photos for us so we can move on a bit.

 

[Billyb]

and this code is just a code of best practice. It's self explinatory within the document that it's not enforcable...

Hey, I wonder why the QLD government would go to all that trouble to make a Code of conduct for our water fluoridators to follow??! Why oh Why would they do that? Oh, that's right, it must be for OUR benefit, i.e to protect the public!! Surprise! Shock! Horror!!!
My advice to you is to try to be less cynical, no one's trying to poison you my friend, the code is there for your benefit mate.

Also, I'm here to set facts straight, not break your ego! Don't take things too personally, it's just a little debate.

 

[Whiskers]

Hey, I wonder why the QLD government would go to all that trouble to make a Code of conduct for our water fluoridators to follow??! Why oh Why would they do that?

The code is there to provide performance solutions and to help potable water and fluoridation suppliers achieve best practice and to meet the statutory requirements of the Water Fluoridation Act and Regulations... not to protect the public per se.

Read the Aim of the Code snip at bottom (and vii Structure of the Code).

The code is intended to, and should be read in conjunction with the legislation... which is premised on research that treats fluorosis (and other side effects) with disdain... and is now recognised as out of date and incomplete, ie not enough is known about side effects.

There is no force of law behind the code... only behind the legislation and regulations which say the daily average fluoridation rate over a quarterly reporting period must be in the range of .8 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l.

Oh, that's right, it must be for OUR benefit, i.e to protect the public!! Surprise! Shock! Horror!!!

Well, that's the dictatorial 'I know what's best for you', your 'fluorosis is minor cosmedic, not a medical condition' and anyway 'it's in the greater public good' mentality.

You cannot use the term protect the public when 1/3 of children are likely to develop fluorosis which they do not want, nor would otherwise get, for the greater public good from forced mass medication (fluoridation), in a marginal at best attempt to achieve less caries in a small minority that don't practice good hygene.

My advice to you is to try to be less cynical, no one's trying to poison you my friend, the code is there for your benefit mate.

You are continuing to dismiss any side effects of fluoridation as insignificant, mate.

It's synonomous with a police officer shooting a shotgun at an escaping shop lifter in a crowd and claiming all the colatteral damage to innocent bystanders was in the greater public good.

Just as the above police example doesn't know the colatteral damage they will cause, you do not know the colatteral damage from fluoridation because in your case you doggedly assume the 'authorities' and historic research are/is unbiased and demonstrating good judgement.

My whole point that you are continuing to side step is the Terms of Reference and indicies for historic research that much of your references refer to and rely on to some degree has been corrupted by the infiltration of the US Public Health System by ex ALCOA and associated fluoride polluting industry staff and associates.

Also, I'm here to set facts straight, not break your ego! Don't take things too personally, it's just a little debate.

So, just for the "debate" post those pictures you and your profession (dentists, you did say you are a dentist) use as teaching aids and reference for the degree of fluorosis... with the particular index type if known.

http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/ehu/fluoride_codepractice.pdf

 

[DB008]

And again l ask these simple questions to the fluoride supporters;

1) Can you please show/prove/give me evidence that fluoride was carried out under a testing phase to show that it was actually beneficial for development of infants in strengthening their teeth to delay the onset of tooth decay/missing teeth? (A simple Fluoride vs Non Fluoride time frame graph/chart will suffice)

2) Exactly what type of "Fluoride" was used for these tests or during the introduction; and what type of Fluoride is being put into the water today?

2 simple questions...yet still not answered...

 

[Billyb]

1) Can you please show/prove/give me evidence that fluoride was carried out under a testing phase to show that it was actually beneficial for development of infants in strengthening their teeth to delay the onset of tooth decay/missing teeth? (A simple Fluoride vs Non Fluoride time frame graph/chart will suffice)

Good questions, Dannyboy.

I will address your first question first.
The first study was done by a group of investigators led by a guy called Henry Dean, this was in the 40's I believe. You might think this is too old. So here's some newer research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19148404
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19060007

2) Exactly what type of "Fluoride" was used for these tests or during the introduction; and what type of Fluoride is being put into the water today?

Water fluoridation is something best studied using retrospective research. This means there is no point doing 'tests' because you are better of just studying the prevalence of caries and fluorosis in communities which are already fluoridated. You look at those places, you compare the decay rates to similar places which are not fluoridated, and you check whether decay rates are lower in the fluoridated town. The research is saying (wihtout a doubt) that YES, water fluordiation works and reduces dental caries. See my above answer.