Fluoride

[medicowallet]

Since you mention bias... please list all your peer reviewed articles that don't have a bias, more particularly a conflict of interest with the fluoride waste/by-product industry or rely heavily on material produced by those with such conflict of interest.

And it STILL only takes ONE study to make fluoridation go away.

Where is this study?

 

[Whiskers]

"I think it's worth highlighting the notion of cause and effect"


So you previously highlighted something now that you disregard?

Typical of your efforts in distorting reality isn't it.

Poor grammar or maybe in particuar poor morphology has me as to what you mean.

 

[Whiskers]

And it STILL only takes ONE study to make fluoridation go away.

Where is this study?

No, it takes a change of legislation for fluoridation to go away.

There are many studies that show adverse effects of fluoridation that the peak bodies previously infiltrated by industry that had a problem with disposing of toxic fluoride waste/by-product, had either dismissed or did not allow publication in so called 'peer' reviewed journals.

That is starting to happen with the fluoridation rate starting to come down significantly as governments become aware that the net public benifit from mass fluoridation has been distorted by corrupt and or biased research from organisations with a conflict of interest with the fluoride waste/by-product industry.

In time fluoridation will likely be shown to be a worse than Asbestos, DDT, global warming and pink bats combined.

 

[Billyb]

Since you mention bias... please list all your peer reviewed articles that don't have a bias, more particularly a conflict of interest with the fluoride waste/by-product industry[/B] or rely heavily on material produced by those with such conflict of interest.

One example only to keep it succinct
Do you think the authors of the article I posted earlier (see abstract below) have a conflict of interest with the fluoride waste/by-product industry? I see no evidence to suggest this. You cannot honestly accuse these authors of having that kind of conflict of interest without a reason to do so other than "that's just what I think".

These guys went out to a bunch of clinics, charted the teeth, collected the data, provided the data in the article, and produced the results. How can you accuse them of manipulating that data.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20415937)

In time fluoridation will likely be shown to be a worse than Asbestos, DDT, global warming and pink bats combined.

You reached this conclusion using a lot of different sources (websites, news articles etc) but none of them were good sound scientific studies.
'In time' should have elapsed by now. Fluoridation has been around for a while in some areas.

 

[DB008]

Fluoride in Drinking Water:
A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards


http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

Chapter 7
Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral Effects

This chapter evaluates the effects of fluoride on the nervous system and behavior, with particular emphasis on studies conducted since the earlier NRC (1993) review. The human data include epidemiologic studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride and individual case studies. In addition, laboratory studies of behavioral, biochemical, and neuroanatomical changes induced by fluoride have been reviewed and summarized. At the end of the chapter, conclusions and recommendations for future research are presented.
HUMAN STUDIES
Cognitive Effects

Several studies from China have reported the effects of fluoride in drinking water on cognitive capacities (X. Li et al. 1995; Zhao et al. 1996; Lu et al. 2000; Xiang et al. 2003a,b). Among the studies, the one by Xiang et al. (2003a) had the strongest design. This study compared the intelligence of 512 children (ages 8-13) living in two villages with different fluoride concentrations in the water. The IQ test was administered in a double-blind manner. The high-fluoride area (Wamiao) had a mean water concentration of 2.47 ± 0.79 mg/L (range 0.57-4.50 milligrams per liter [mg/L]), and the low-fluoride area (Xinhuai) had a mean water concentration of 0.36 ± 0.15 mg/L (range 0.18-0.76 mg/L). The populations studied had comparable iodine and creatinine concentrations, family incomes, family educational levels, and other factors. The populations were not exposed to other significant sources of fluoride, such as smoke from coal fires, industrial pollution, or consumption of brick tea. Thus, the difference in fluoride exposure was attributed to the amount in the drinking water. Mean urinary fluoride1 concentrations were found to be 3.47 ± 1.95 mg/L in Wamiao and 1.11 ± 0.39 mg/L in Xinhuai. Using the combined Raven’s Test for Rural China, the average intelligence quotient (IQ) of the children in Wamiao was found to be significantly lower (92.2 ± 13.00; range, 54-126) than that in Xinhuai (100.41 ± 13.21; range, 60-128).

The IQ scores in both males and females declined with increasing fluoride exposure. The distribution of IQ scores from the females in the two villages is shown in Figure 7-1. A comparable illustration of the IQ scores of males is shown in Figure 7-2. The number of children in Wamiao with scores in the higher IQ ranges was less than that in Xinhuai. There were corresponding increases in the number of children in the lower IQ range. Modal scores of the IQ distributions in the two villages were approximately the same. A follow-up study to determine whether the lower IQ scores of the children in Wamiao might be related to differences in lead exposure disclosed no significant difference in blood lead concentrations in the two groups of children (Xiang et al. 2003b).

A study conducted by Lu et al. (2000) in a different area of China also compared the IQs of 118 children (ages 10-12) living in two areas with different fluoride concentrations in the water (3.15 ± 0.61 mg/L in one area and 0.37 ± 0.04 mg/L in the other). The children were lifelong residents of the villages and had similar social and educational levels. Urinary fluoride concentrations were measured at 4.99 ± 2.57 mg/L in the high-fluoride area and 1.43 ± 0.64 mg/L in the low-fluoride area. IQ measurements using the Chinese Combined Raven’s Test, Copyright 2 (see Wang and Qian 1989), showed significantly lower mean IQ scores among children in the high-fluoride area (92.27 ± 20.45) than in children in the low-fluoride area (103.05 ± 13.86). Of special importance, 21.6% of the children in the high-fluoride village scored 70 or below on the IQ scale. For the children in the low-fluoride village, only 3.4% had such low scores. Urinary fluoride concentrations were inversely correlated with mental performance in the IQ test. Qin and Cui (1990) observed similar negative correlation between IQ and fluoride intake through drinking water.

Zhao et al. (1996) also compared the IQs of 160 children (ages 7-14)

1


In the following sections of the chapter, the word “fluoride” is used frequently to indicate what is being measured in blood or urine of people or animals after some treatment with a fluoride. According to medical dictionaries, the word fluoride refers to any binary compound containing fluorine. In many studies, the amount of fluoride reported in urine, blood, or tissue of subjects is the amount of fluorine in the specimen(s). The measurements are frequently referred to as the amount of fluoride present. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to distinguish between the species of fluoride measured.

FIGURE 7-1 Distribution of IQ scores from females in Wamiao and Xinuai. SOURCE: data from Xiang et al. 2003a.



The investigators also reported that enamel fluorosis was present in 86% of the children in the high-exposure group and in 14% of the children in the low-exposure group and that skeletal fluorosis was found only in the high-exposure group at 9%.

Another Chinese study evaluated fluoride exposure due to inhalation of soot and smoke from domestic coal fires used for cooking, heating, and drying grain (Li et al. 1995). Many of the children exhibited moderate to severe enamel fluorosis. The average IQ of 900 children (ages 8-13) from an area with severe enamel fluorosis was 9-15 points lower than the average IQ of children from an area with low or no enamel fluorosis. Urinary fluoride concentrations were found to be inversely correlated with IQ, as measured by the China Rui Wen Scale for Rural Areas, and were monotonically related to the degree of enamel fluorosis. Studies based on fluoride exposure from the inhalation of smoke from coal fires are difficult to interpret because of exposure to many other contaminants in smoke.

The significance of these Chinese studies is uncertain. Most of the papers were brief reports and omitted important procedural details. For example, some studies used a modification of the Raven Progressive Matrix test but did not specify what the modifications were or describe how the test was administered. Most of the studies did not indicate whether the IQ tests were administered in a blinded manner. Some of the effects noted in the studies could have been due to stress induced by the testing conditions. Without detailed information about the testing conditions and the tests themselves, the committee was unable to assess the strength of the studies. Despite this, the consistency of the collective results warrants additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence in populations that share similar languages, backgrounds, socioeconomic levels, and other commonalities.

It should be noted that many factors outside of native intelligence influence performance on IQ tests. One factor that might be of relevance to fluoride is impairment of thyroid gland function (see Chapter 8). For example, hypothyroidism produces tiredness, depression, difficulties in concentration, memory impairments, and impaired hearing. In addition, there is some evidence that impaired thyroid function in pregnant women can lead to children with lower IQ scores (Klein et al. 2001).
Mental and Physiological Changes

There are numerous reports of mental and physiological changes after exposure to fluoride from various routes (air, food, and water) and for various time periods (Waldbott et al. 1978). A number of the reports are, in fact, experimental studies of one or more individuals who underwent withdrawal from their source of fluoride exposure and subsequent re-exposures under “blind” conditions. In most cases, the symptoms disappeared with the elimination of exposure to fluoride and returned when exposure was reinstated. In some instances, when the fluoride was given in water, this procedure was repeated several times under conditions in which neither the patient nor the provider of the fluoride knew whether the water contained fluoride. Also reported are instances when fluoride-produced symptoms occurred when people moved into a community with fluoridated water but disappeared when the individuals moved to a nonfluoridated community.

More on the link above....

Again, l will get shot down by Medico and Billy.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Again, l will get shot down by Medico and Billy.

You have to remember there are people on forums that will spout disinfo - perhaps they are paid to do so or they have a vested interest in the topic.

By observing the amount of discussion, studies and reports on fluoride it's clear that there are enough significant factors to warrant suspension of fluoride and to undertake an independent multi-year study of the affects of fluoride consumption.

It is the authorities obligation to ensure safety at all times, hence if there is now doubt about fluoride consumption then an independent review needs to be undertaken.

Billy and Medi can spout whatever they want on this forum - since they are not the ones responsible for anyone's health here and nor do they accept any liability for the use or misuse of fluoride. Or perhaps I am wrong and fluoride is perfectly safe, hence Billy and Medi will you accept full commercial liability should fluoride be proven to affect the health of those that you spouted your propaganda on this forum? I didn't think so.

However, the authorities that dose the population with fluoride do have a liability and a responsibility - it is these people that need to answer the questions raised here.

 

[medicowallet]

Again, l will get shot down by Medico and Billy.

Of course you will.

Where was the study published?
What are the p-values? (because looking at the graphs and the confidence intervals, looks like p>0.05 to me

Billy and Medi can spout whatever they want on this forum - since they are not the ones responsible for anyone's health here and nor do they accept any liability for the use or misuse of fluoride. Or perhaps I am wrong and fluoride is perfectly safe, hence Billy and Medi will you accept full commercial liability should fluoride be proven to affect the health of those that you spouted your propaganda on this forum? I didn't think so.

do you accept responsibility for lack of fluoridation on the negative health outcomes of people with poor dental health?

I didn't think so.

Personally OWG, I prefer to side with the WHO instead of you, or perhaps you would like to provide a cost-benefit study which shows fluoridation is ineffective.

I don't think you will.

Perhaps those arguing tactics work in other threads, but in this one there is clear, published, peer reviewed scientific evidence that supports fluoridation, and to go against the science is just ludicrous.

 

[medicowallet]

Poor grammar or maybe in particuar poor morphology has me as to what you mean.

Poor spelling in there.

You can't understand that your stance is something that you ridiculed prior IN THE SAME POST? lol

You cannot try to say something about cause and effect and then later in the post try to relate something to another without any reference to causation.

That is ludicrous

P.S. I love your references to grammar and to spelling. I know you think you are highly educated because you got a token invite to the golden key club in a weak uni course (which is quite easy to receive). I wish I had the time to address all of the spelling mistakes you have made, but will not be so petty. I can also assure you that my strengths lie in other, more important areas.

 

[Whiskers]

One example only to keep it succinct
Do you think the authors of the article I posted earlier (see abstract below) have a conflict of interest with the fluoride waste/by-product industry? I see no evidence to suggest this. You cannot honestly accuse these authors of having that kind of conflict of interest without a reason to do so other than "that's just what I think".

These guys went out to a bunch of clinics, charted the teeth, collected the data, provided the data in the article, and produced the results. How can you accuse them of manipulating that data.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20415937)

I can only repeat what I said to you once before Billy, there is none so blind as those who do not want to see.

So, you didn't know that the University of Sydney, School of Dentistry received a donation from Colgate and (at least) $25,OOO per year from Colgate.

You reached this conclusion using a lot of different sources (websites, news articles etc) but none of them were good sound scientific studies.
'In time' should have elapsed by now. Fluoridation has been around for a while in some areas.

How does that old saying go; those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Manufacturers of Asbestos knew about the adverse health affects of asbestos since late in the 19th century. They knew about the research proving a carcenagenic link and concealed it for at least 30 years before the lid was blown off that conspiracy and cover up.

Hence my (and many others) interest in what data and research the fluoride/fluoridation industry has, but is not publishing, ie concealing from the public.

 

[Whiskers]

Poor spelling in there.

You can't understand that your stance is something that you ridiculed prior IN THE SAME POST? lol

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, just inquisitive as to exactly what you meant before I shot you down in flames... and still the case.

If you could be specific about what you think "my stance" was that you think I "ridiculed prior IN THE SAME POST", I can be very specific.

You cannot try to say something about cause and effect and then later in the post try to relate something to another without any reference to causation.

For example here, substitute "something" with the precise topic you mean and similarly with "another".

 

[Knobby22]

In time fluoridation will likely be shown to be a worse than Asbestos, DDT, global warming and pink bats combined.

Wow, what about adding the Chernobyl disaster??

Who would have though, Colgate push fluoridation because they make the stuff and supply it in trace quantities to governments and put it in their toothpaste as well. They could take it out of their toothpaste and save money if they wanted to but they prefer to poison everyone. And the whole dental industry is in on the deal even though they know fluoridation is akin to asbestos. How the doctors go along with it I don't know!!

Wow! I want your mind, imagine the dreams you have.

Have you ever seen a Russian drink water?? Look at the following link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcHNYenN7OY

 

[Whiskers]

Wow, what about adding the Chernobyl disaster??

Who would have though, Colgate push fluoridation because they make the stuff and supply it in trace quantities to governments and put it in their toothpaste as well. And the whole dental industry is in on the deal even though they know fluoridation is akin to asbestos. Wow! I want your mind, imagine the dreams you have.

Oh no, not the whole dental industry.

There are a lot of dentists that don't promote fluoridation and some that don't even promote fluoride toothpaste.

There are a lot of people including dentists that just 'trust' the research and advice they are taught and given. They are not nearly as much taught/told about the history, and conflicts of interest.

The main problem, that I addressed earlier in the thread, is that the fluoride/fluoridation industry was spawned out of huge environmental and legal problems industry like ALCOA had in disposing of their fluoride toxic waste from metal production etc.

The notion of adding fluoride to the water supply originated because it was observed by ALCOA's scientists (not dentists or doctors) that people in the vicinity of these toxic fluoride environmental disasters had less teeth cavities. Colgate was early to allign with them to make a good profit on the back of such 'wonderful' news/promotion.

The American Dental Association (ADA) had a very influential position in the US Public Health System at the time (detailed earlier in the thread) and soon became led by a former associate (Lawyer) of ALCOA. Just a few months ago the ADA was demoted to a much lower influence in the US Public Health System and complained bitterly (also detailed earlier).

The long and short of it is the fluoride/fluoridation industry spawned from a huge toxic environmental, legal and credibility problem. ALCOA and Colgate in particular threw a lot of money at promoting this new heath so called "nutrient" as the 'savior' of dental and public health.

The conflict of interests are only recently being significantly whittled away (eg ADA) from which there can be expected to be less biased, even unbiased reports recognized by authorities in the coming years.

PS: Knobby, remember the asbestos industry managed to conceal research they had proving the link to cancer for over 30 years. That's why you and I should be concerned with researchers directly associated with the fluoride/fluoridation industry not publishing all relevant data they have such as the detail about delayed tooth eruption in fluoridated areas, the local areas in their Significant Caries Index (SiC) data, the relationship with induced Iodine deficiency to name just a few.

 

[Knobby22]

There may be a case, but it is subtle.

Saying it comapres with DDT and Asbestos is just hysteria.

 

[Whiskers]

There may be a case, but it is subtle.

Saying it comapres with DDT and Asbestos is just hysteria.

Not sure what you mean by subtle, Knobby.

But, for me if I (and many others) play devils advocate, ie play safe and put discretion before valor and ask for some pertinent information and don't get the answer or data in question, but immediately get sprayed with vitriole... that doesn't do anything to bolster the credibility of the industry, on the contrary, it raises more questions about conflict of interest and the integrity of the information and advice we are given.

The other aspect that many of us reject is the compulsory (in Qld) fluoridation of the whole state. If individuals wish to use fluoride toothpaste, tablets, mouthwash etc, that their right and that's fine... but to compel the whole population to ingest fluoride where the most recognized benefit is in the topical application, and when a small minority of the population has the vast majority of the problem is a gross infringement of civil rights.

The acid test is if it's so good for us, why do the legislate to completely indemnify the gov and fluoridation businesses against any claim for damages.

 

[Whiskers]

Probably time to revisit;

(from start of thread)

Knobby, this doesn't constitute a scientific study. I spent one month in an area where there is fluoride in the water. My teeth at the end of that time were so brown with fluorosis that they looked rotten. Not just a "faint, almost indiscernible mottling" as the pro fluoride lobby suggests, but dark, solid brown. Had to get them all veneered.

I had no idea what had happened until I went to the dentist on arriving home and he immediately deduced that I had been drinking fluoridated water.

This only affects a small proportion of the population, but it is a very real concern to those who are affected.

and...

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.

To which BillyB suggested she couldn't have fluorosis, it must have been something else [post #524 & #527].

I'm not a dentist and have never seen or know much about Julia, but from what she has posted on this thread it's curious that in all Billy's attempted dismissing of fluorosis as Julia's condition, he didn't address the issue that she could have been an unknowing victim of fluoride/fluorosis as a contaminate in some food or other enviornmental exposure as a baby/child.

Also, that grapefruit juice is well known to suck minerals out of tooth enamel making the enamel thiner and sometimes the teeth sensitive, but your teeth tend to restore mineralisation naturally. If Julia had some degree of pre existing fluorosis that was not particularly noticable, the grapefruit juice likely eroded the enamel enough to make such fluorosis more pronounced.

The older Dean index of fluorosis didn't clean and dry teeth before inspecting for fluorosis, but some later indicies require cleaning and drying of teeth to properly see fluorosis. Plenty of grapefruit juice would certainly have cleaned off the surface enamel to expose whatever was underneath.

Then, as we know by drinking fluoridated water, the remineralisation process is completely altered involving different elements and chemical reactions.

I'm more interested in what Billy didn't say than what he did say about the process of remineralisation with fluoride.

I just want a dentist to walk us through the physiological processes, rather than just declaring its safe based on 'published' science, and for the greater good.

In my business I'm all too proud to discuss the clean green detail of what I do. I've seen plenty of detail analysis of dentists (and doctors) explaining the intricate detail of what's not good about fluoride in the human metabolism, but the pro fluoride lobby tend to pretty short on detail and long on 'it's safe until proven unsafe' rhetoric.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

do you accept responsibility for lack of fluoridation on the negative health outcomes of people with poor dental health?

I didn't think so.

Personally OWG, I prefer to side with the WHO instead of you, or perhaps you would like to provide a cost-benefit study which shows fluoridation is ineffective.

I don't think you will.

Gotta love your spin.

What I stated was that further investigation is needed, hence a suspension of fluoride use is required until more Independent and complete studies be conducted. For those like yourself that believe in the propaganda then Government supplied fluoride tablets will suffice.

This sounds to me to be a logical approach, doesn't infringe on anyone's rights and supports those that want to medicate themselves with an S6 poison, er, nutrient.

 

[Billyb]

So, you didn't know that the University of Sydney, School of Dentistry received a donation from Colgate and (at least) $25,OOO per year from Colgate.

But that doesn't mean that Colgate are paying them to do 'dodgy-under-the table' stuff with their research. That doesn't mean there's a cover up going on at the University of Sydney, Whiskers. It's just a way for Colgate to get their name out to the dentists and patients at the dental school. Like advertising. And it's an oopurtunity for the Uni to get funds.
There's NO evidence to suggest what you are suggesting is going on.

Colgate also gives me free toothpaste and toothbrushes.
The pharmaceutical companies give medical doctors lots of free stuff - it's doesn't mean they are covering something up just because they are trying to market themselves this way.

I can only repeat what I said to you once before Billy, there is none so blind as those who do not want to see.

This is what I don't get. See what exactly? I can't SEE any evidence to suggest dodgy stuff is going on between the University of Sydney and Colgate. And if I'm correct, then I am not blind, you are just seeing things, Whiskers.

he didn't address the issue that she could have been an unknowing victim of fluoride/fluorosis as a contaminate in some food or other enviornmental exposure as a baby/child.
Also, that grapefruit juice is well known to suck minerals out of tooth enamel making the enamel thiner and sometimes the teeth sensitive, but your teeth tend to restore mineralisation naturally. If Julia had some degree of pre existing fluorosis that was not particularly noticable, the grapefruit juice likely eroded the enamel enough to make such fluorosis more pronounced.

Few points, I list them by dot points so they are easy to understand
1. If she has severe fluorosis like she described (brown mottled etc), it would have shown immediately as a child. Enamel is very thin, if there is any darkness deep in the enamel I am sure it will still have shown as a child.
2. Buccal enamel does not become 'thinner or stripped away', because there is no attrition. It simply demineralises, and then becomes cavitated at a later stage
3. And If the enamel demineralises it becomes more opaque, therefore any underlying discoloration is probably going to show less not more!!
Therefore, your theory, as much as it is a good try, just doesn't add up. Severe fluorosis doesn't just expose it's self after the superficial enamel is demineralised by grapefruits. It shows up way before that.

.

The older Dean index of fluorosis didn't clean and dry teeth before inspecting for fluorosis, but some later indicies require cleaning and drying of teeth to properly see fluorosis. Plenty of grapefruit juice would certainly have cleaned off the surface enamel to expose whatever was underneath.

They don't clean off the surface enamel, they just clean of plaque/calculus etc which may be hindering visibility. Obviously this will lead to higher findings of mild fluorosis. Severe fluorosis stands out without any cleaning/drying required.

Gotta love your spin.

What I stated was that further investigation is needed, hence a suspension of fluoride use is required until more Independent and complete studies be conducted.

This is the point Ozwaveguy. A;; the independent, complete good studies say it's safe
There's plenty of good evidence out there. And it all says this: Water fluoridation is safe for the body, it increases risk of fluorosis but significantly reduces dental disease.

There's NO independent, complete, good studies that I have yet seen that say's it's unsafe.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Bill, you've created a new definition for a "spin class".

 

[Whiskers]

But that doesn't mean that Colgate are paying them to do 'dodgy-under-the table' stuff with their research. That doesn't mean there's a cover up going on at the University of Sydney, Whiskers. It's just a way for Colgate to get their name out to the dentists and patients at the dental school. Like advertising. And it's an oopurtunity for the Uni to get funds.
There's NO evidence to suggest what you are suggesting is going on.

It's still a conflict of interest.

Few points, I list them by dot points so they are easy to understand
1. If she has severe fluorosis like she described (brown mottled etc), it would have shown immediately as a child. Enamel is very thin, if there is any darkness deep in the enamel I am sure it will still have shown as a child.

The what-if scenerio I postulated was specifically that if the degree of fluorosis was not noticable as a baby/child.

2. Buccal enamel does not become 'thinner or stripped away', because there is no attrition. It simply demineralises, and then becomes cavitated at a later stage

Buy doesn't acidic conditions soften the enamel and make it prone to erosion?

Isn't it recomended that you rinse your mouth with water after acidic drinks and food and delay brushing for an hour to avoid abrasively wearing the enamel away by brushing?

Doesn't the mechanical action of brushing over time erode the enamel and reduce fluoride content?

3. And If the enamel demineralises it becomes more opaque, therefore any underlying discoloration is probably going to show less not more!!

Initially yes. But what about the effect of pH cycling. In this what-if scenerio (not necessairly Julia), could not the significant acidic juice and brushing be considered or at least have the effect of a lesion on the tooth enamel, then as fluoridated water and food started to come into the equation with pH cycling, the reminerilastion occurs mainly around the lesion (enamel) and draws mineral from deeper in the dentin, and if the dentin was already low in mineral but not quite noticable, it could now be very noticable?

They don't clean off the surface enamel, they just clean of plaque/calculus etc which may be hindering visibility. Obviously this will lead to higher findings of mild fluorosis. Severe fluorosis stands out without any cleaning/drying required.

Well, that's what I meant... to clean off the surface of the enamel.

 

[Billyb]

Believe whatever you want Ozwave, In the meantime I've decided I'll use the best available evidence to form my belief which I can then communicate to my patients.

Also, if it's good in the opinion of the World health Organization, then that's another reason I'm happy

If people start producing high quality evidence to suggest otherwise, only then I'll change my mind.