Fluoride

[DB008]

Interesting...

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.

WHO Quotes Below

8.1.3.8 Dental effects

It has been recognized for over five decades that fluoride may have both beneficial and potentially harmful effects on dental health. While the prevalence of dental caries is inversely related to a range of concentrations of fluoride in drinking-water consumed, the prevalence of dental fluorosis has been shown to be positively related to fluoride intake from many sources (Fejerskov et al., 1988, 1996). Public health programmes seeking to maximize the beneficial effects of fluoride on dental health through the introduction of fluoridated drinking-water have, at the same time, strived to minimize its adverse fluorotic effects on teeth. Based upon the studies conducted by Dean and colleagues five decades ago, the "optimum" level of fluoride in drinking-water, associated with the maximum level of dental caries protection and minimum level of dental fluorosis, was considered to be approximately 1 mg/litre. The effects of fluoride on dental health were examined by a WHO Expert Committee (WHO, 1994).

1) Dental caries

Since the first reports by Dean and colleagues published in the 1930s, oral fluoride is still considered an effective means of reducing dental caries. Historically, populations consuming fluoridated drinking-water had a much lower prevalence of dental caries than did those consuming non-fluoridated drinking-water. Over time, the difference in caries prevalence among those consuming fluoridated and non-fluoridated drinking-water has narrowed significantly. This apparent diminution in the cariostatic effectiveness of fluoridated drinking-water is likely attributable to a "diffusion" in which individuals consuming non-fluoridated drinking-water may consume significant amounts of beverages prepared in other locales with fluoridated drinking-water, as well as exposure to fluoride through the use of dental care products — mainly fluoridated toothpaste. It has been estimated that whereas approximately 210 million individuals throughout the world consume drinking-water containing levels of fluoride considered adequate for the prevention of dental caries, approximately 500 million people use fluoridated toothpastes (WHO, 1994).

 

[DB008]

'Second Thoughts about Fluoride,' Reports Scientific American

NEW YORK, Jan. 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "Some recent studies suggest that
over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth,
bones, the brain and the thyroid gland," reports Scientific American editors
(January 2008). "Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to
shift," writes author Dan Fagin.

"Fluoride, the most consumed drug in the USA, is deliberately added to 2/3 of
public water supplies theoretically to reduce tooth decay, but with no
scientifically-valid evidence proving safety or effectiveness," says lawyer
Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.

Fagin, award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York
University's Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program, writes,
"There is no universally accepted optimal level for daily intake of fluoride."
Some researchers even wonder whether the 1 mg/L added into drinking water is
too much, reports Fagin.

More on the link below;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/02/idUS108377+02-Jan-2008+PRN20080102"]http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/02/idUS108377+02-Jan-2008+PRN20080102[/URL]

 

[Billyb]

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

Yes, over time generally meaning many years, probably decades. Julia said it occured over only one month.

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?

I'm not sure that I fully understand what you're saying, but I'm reading it as though you are saying the enamel remineralises by 'sucking out' mineral from the dentine. Where did you read or hear about this? In order to remineralise, enamel requires minerals from saliva and the tooth pellicle, however, it doesn't remineralise from the dentine. We can see this from SEM scans, which would show demineralised enamel remineralising from the outside-in, not the inside-out.

 

[DB008]

Hexafluorosilicic acid is the inorganic compound with the formula H2SiF6. It is a product of the production of hydrogen fluoride and the production of phosphate fertilizers. The majority of the hexafluorosilicic acid is used for the production of aluminum metal. Hexafluorosilicic acid is also commonly used for water fluoridation.


MSDS for dihydrogen hexaflorosilicate

General

Synonyms: hydrofluorosilicic acid, hexafluorosilicic acid, fluorosilicic acid, hydrogen hexafluorosilicate, silicofluoric acid
Molecular formula: H2SiF6
CAS No: 16961-83-4
EINECS No: 241-034-8

Physical data

Appearance: colourless liquid; often supplied as a colourless solution in water
Melting point:
Boiling point: 108.5 C (as the pure liquid)
Vapour density:
Vapour pressure:
Density (g cm-3): 1.32
Flash point:
Explosion limits:
Autoignition temperature:
Water solubility: soluble

Stability

Stable in aqueous solution.

Toxicology

Corrosive - causes burns. Harmful by ingestion, inhalation and through skin contact. May be fatal if swallowed. May cause serious eye damage.

Risk phrases
(The meaning of any risk phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
R20 R21 R22 R34 R41.

Transport information

Personal protection

Safety glasses, adequate ventilation.

Safety phrases
(The meaning of any safety phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
S26 S27.

 

[Julia]

If you could all carry on your squabble without using me as a point of reference, I would appreciate it.

I started the thread long ago in good faith, simply asking for how I could successfully filter my town water supply to eliminate fluoride. To this I received some genuine and helpful replies, as is usually the case on ASF.

I will probably tend to trust the opinion of the dentist who actually saw the problem with my teeth at the time, and before having the expense of veneers, over someone on the internet who has not seen and may not be fully aware of all the circumstances.

That said, I do not wish to be further engaged in the discussion about the effectiveness or otherwise of fluoride.
I am with the simple logic of OzWave Guy who is saying what I have all along, viz that those who want to use fluoride have the means of doing so as individuals.
I do not believe the rest of us should have any substance put into the water supply which is not necessary for providing cleanliness of that water, e.g. chlorine.

To do so is, imo, unethical and an infringement of individual rights. That is all I'm concerned about.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

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.

It's not about changing your mind it's about looking after the health of the population - based on your lust for fluoride it appears that you would never admit anything was wrong even if the WHO came back and said it was bad in a "spinful" way.

Is this the same WHO that pushed the H1N1 scare with the vaccine companies to drive billions in profits? Yes, an unelected organization full of trust.

 

[Billyb]

If you could all carry on your squabble without using me as a point of reference, I would appreciate it.

Of course, No problems.
(However this is a discussion forum - perhaps in future reconsider raising these sorts of issues if you don't want it discussed!)

I will probably tend to trust the opinion of the dentist who actually saw the problem with my teeth at the time, and before having the expense of veneers, over someone on the internet who has not seen and may not be fully aware of all the circumstances.

Understandable

To do so is, imo, unethical and an infringement of individual rights. That is all I'm concerned about.

Yes well ethical arguments can go on forever and there is no right or wrong because we all have different beliefs when it comes to ethics. I believe it is unethical do do nothing when we have high decay rates and there is an option available with evidence to prove it's highly effective and highly safe. Yes now you can see why ethical debates go in circles. Hence I prefer just to acknowledge that there is an ethical debate here and leave it at that.

It's not about changing your mind it's about looking after the health of the population - based on your lust for fluoride it appears that you would never admit anything was wrong even if the WHO came back and said it was bad in a "spinful" way..

Absolutely not. If the evidence started saying that fluoridated water is dangerous, and WHO then took that point of view as well, then I would go with what the evidence and WHO says.

That's what Medicowallet and I have been saying all along...we will form our belief based on the latest and best data - which at the moment is saying it's safe and effective so that's what I'm going to stick with. Anything which says it's not safe seems to be rubbish research from what I've seen so far.

 

[Julia]

Of course, No problems.

Thank you.

(However this is a discussion forum - perhaps in future reconsider raising these sorts of issues if you don't want it discussed!)

This is what my first post said:

The Queensland government has announced it will put fluoride in the water supply from next year.

Quite apart from the moral issue of mass medicating the whole population, I cannot drink fluoridated water for various other health related reasons.

Does anyone know of a filter system which will remove fluoride?

Has anyone successfully fought local or State governments on this issue?

So far I've just come up against the predictable bureaucratic brick wall.

Any input would be appreciated.

Nothing wrong with that. It is a perfectly legitimate enquiry on a forum which usually comes up with an answer to most questions, as it did in this case with responses about various types of filters.

That it has descended into a rude rabble is not my responsibility. I am simply asking that the ongoing argument should leave me personally out of it.

 

[medicowallet]

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.

How many more years of trials then?

Do you still breathe considering oxygen at 100% will kill you?

Stop giving me conspiracy theory dogma, I have been around long enough to understand trials and toxicity ( and being involved in studies too )

Your high school level arguments have no evidence.


Until Fluoridation has a negative cost-benefit analysis, I will continue to support it, as will all ethical health practitioners.

 

[DB008]

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.

Interesting...

8.1.3.8 Dental effects

2) Dental fluorosis

Since the publication of the WHO (1994) assessment on the quantitative relationship between dental fluorosis and fluoride intake, a large number of further studies have been published on the matter. A recent meta-analysis (McDonagh et al., 2000) of such studies is presented in Figures 2 and 3.


Dental fluorosis is a condition that results from the intake of excess levels of fluoride during the period of tooth development, usually from birth to approximately 6–8 years of age. It has been termed a hypoplasia or hypomineralization of dental enamel and dentine and is associated with the excessive incorporation of fluoride into these structures. The severity of this condition, generally characterized as ranging from very mild to severe, is related to the extent of fluoride exposure during the period of tooth development. Mild dental fluorosis is usually typified by the appearance of small white areas in the enamel; individuals with severe dental fluorosis have teeth that are stained and pitted ("mottled") in appearance. In human fluorotic teeth, the most prominent feature is a hypomineralization of the enamel. In contrast to many animal species, fluoride-induced enamel hypoplasia (indicating severe fluoride disturbance of enamel matrix production) seems to be rare in fluorosed human enamel. The staining and pitting of fluorosed dental enamel are both posteruptive phenomena (i.e., acquired after tooth eruption and occur as a consequence of the enamel hypomineralization). The incorporation of excessive amounts of fluoride into enamel is believed to interfere with its normal maturation, as a result of alterations in the rheologic structure of the enamel matrix and/or effects on cellular metabolic processes associated with normal enamel development (WHO, 1994; Aoba, 1997; Whitford, 1997). Experimental animal studies suggest that this hypomineralization results from fluoride disturbance of the process of enamel maturation (Richards et al., 1986).


Unlike skeletal fluorosis, which is considered to be a marker of long-term exposure to fluoride (due to the ongoing process of bone remodelling), dental fluorosis is considered to be indicative of the level of exposure to fluoride only during the period of enamel formation. Exposure to excessive levels of fluoride after tooth development appears to have little influence on the extent of fluorosis. Re-evaluation of classical fluorosis data (Dean et al., 1941, 1942; Richards et al., 1967; Butler et al., 1985) has shown that even at low fluoride intake from water, a certain level of dental fluorosis will be found (Fejerskov et al., 1996). A dose–response relationship was also demonstrated. The data demonstrated an increase of the fluorosis community index by 0.2 for every dose increase of 0.01 mg fluoride/kg body weight.

Over the past 30–40 years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of dental fluorosis among populations consuming either fluoridated or non-fluoridated drinking-water. Although greater numbers of individuals are now being served by fluoridated drinking-water, for the most part this increased prevalence in dental fluorosis has been attributed to the widespread intake of fluoride from sources other than drinking-water, especially in areas served by non-fluoridated drinking-water. Unlike the situation in the 1930s, when the primary sources of exposure to fluoride were limited to drinking-water and foodstuffs, now there is potential exposure to fluoride from a variety of additional sources, such as toothpastes, mouth rinses, fluoride supplements and topically applied dental gels, solutions and varnishes. Exposure to fluoride may also result from the ingestion of fluoridated salt or fluoridated milk.

The prevalence of dental fluorosis is also elevated in certain areas of the world where the intake of fluoride may be inordinately high, due in large part to the elevated fluoride content of the surrounding geological environment. In China, large numbers of people exhibit dental fluorosis (Liu, 1995). In addition to the actual consumption of often large amounts of drinking-water containing naturally occurring elevated levels of fluoride, the indoor burning of coal rich in fluoride, the preparation of foodstuffs in water containing increased fluoride levels and the consumption of specific foodstuffs naturally rich in fluoride, such as tea, are believed to contribute to the elevated intake of fluoride, with the resultant development of dental fluorosis (Chen et al., 1993, 1996; Grimaldo et al., 1995; Han et al., 1995; Liu, 1995; Xu et al., 1995).

 

[Billyb]

Interesting...

Yes Dannyboy, we already know and the WHO has already acknowledged that there will be more dental fluorosis with water fluoridation - nothing new there.

 

[Whiskers]

If you could all carry on your squabble without using me as a point of reference, I would appreciate it.

I'm doing my best Julia.

I did adopt my writing style to 'third person' and (what-if) specifically to depersonalise the conversation and focus on the physiological process of fluoridation that the pro fluoridation lobby tend to avoid by relying on headline banners.

But unfortunately these guys don't seem to be very articulate in the english language and more particularly the theme of what is being said... but having said that the pro fluoridation campaign tends to be a deliberate personality and credibility attack, rather than freely providing all the scientific data and explanations of what their headline banners would have us believe is such compelling and indisputable data.

But having said all that I do apolagise for using your eralier post, since Billy trawled back to find it and attempt to descredit it, as bait to goad him into discussing some of the physiological processes of fluoride and fluoridation.

I hope we can continue to discuss the physiological prosesses objectively in the third person and what-if scenerios, that the population commonly encounter.

Bty, I can understand people getting weary of the subject and getting on with their lives since the 'legal' process to implement compulsory fluoridation has been enacted... but I just got my second wind and changed tact a bit. More details later, maybe.

 

[Whiskers]

Yes, over time generally meaning many years, probably decades. Julia said it occured over only one month.

That's my point. As people age their enamel tends to erode and become thinner from brushing, chewing and other damage.

I'm not sure that I fully understand what you're saying, but I'm reading it as though you are saying the enamel remineralises by 'sucking out' mineral from the dentine.

Billy, you are not familiar with pH cycling! It's a concept used extensively in the medical and agricultural sciences that I'm more familiar with.

pH Cycling: Maybe a bit simplistic but essentially it's the notion of the pH of a local environment (eg mouth saliva) being substantially influenced by strongly acidic (in this case) substances to cause a short term sharp reduction in pH which restores to normal and subsequently forced lower again, hence the term cycling.

I haven't studied this report, but a quick google search finds this on pH cycling; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14762502

Where did you read or hear about this?

In a clinical dentistry book. I don't recall the exact title. Maybe it was more a specialist publication because it got into some pretty heavy detail pyhsiological analysis.

In order to remineralise, enamel requires minerals from saliva and the tooth pellicle, however, it doesn't remineralise from the dentine. We can see this from SEM scans, which would show demineralised enamel remineralising from the outside-in, not the inside-out.

Firstly some easy to understand laymans explanations.

Dental pellicle is a protein film that forms on the surface enamel by selective binding of glycoproteins from saliva that prevents continuous deposition of salivary calcium phosphate. It forms in seconds after a tooth is cleaned. It is also protective to the tooth from the acids produced by oral microorganisms after consuming the available carbohydrates

SEM: Scanning Electron Microscope.

pH Scale: is the measure of the Hydrogen ion concentration to provide a measure of how acidity or alkalinity.



Billy, I think you are overlooking;

1. the effect of ingested fluoride, as in fluoridation,
2. that the fluoride atom is very small, and
3. the fluoride ion has a very strong electron bond, hence
4. it's ability to move through tissue easily, and
5. it's ability to easily displace some other elements/compounds, and
6. the effect of pH cycling with all the above.

I'm interested in further discussion once you familiarise yourself with this, that may be a bit over your head and more of a specialty.

 

[Billyb]

I'm doing my best Julia.

I did adopt my writing style to 'third person' and (what-if) specifically to depersonalise the conversation and focus on the physiological process of fluoridation that the pro fluoridation lobby tend to avoid by relying on headline banners.

Settle down Whiskers, you actively went back and picked out her posts and republished her posts with her name on it. 'Depersonalise it'...yeaahh right. Don't worry, that's the last I'll mention that issue, I just felt that much had to be said.

Anyways, after all that I hope you understand the processes a bit better now that we've gone through it a bit, but it seems this thing is going around in circles. I might summarise what I think so far:

1. All the best science is telling us water fluoridation is safe, effective, and cost-effective.

2. Therefore, the concensus among the scientific, dental, and medical community at this point in time is that water fluoridation is safe, effective and cost-effective.

3. So at the end of the day, it's up to the antifluoridists to find evidence or produce (quality) evidence if they think it's not safe, not effective or not cost-effective
And, so far there doesn't seem to be any out there.

4. Because there is currently no evidence to support their views, the anti-fluoridists are simply speculating - they think in the future some evidence will come out to prove it's unsafe. Speculation, that's all it is.

5. Lastly, there is an ethical debate, there are some who think it's unethical to make everyone's water fluoridated (even if it is safe in the literature). Well, I'd argue it's unethical that poor people have to wait 6 years to see a dentist and rich people can see one straight away. Ethics is very wishy-washy so we all can all have our opinions on that..

 

[Billyb]

Billy, you are not familiar with pH cycling! It's a concept used extensively in the medical and agricultural sciences that I'm more familiar with.

]

I do know what pH cycling is.

However, I don't know where you're going with all this. I don't want to fluff around too much about this, it doesn't need to be excessively technical. If you'd be so kind to make your point or argument clear and concise then I'll have something to direct my post toward.

 

[Billyb]

In a clinical dentistry book. I don't recall the exact title. Maybe it was more a specialist publication because it got into some pretty heavy detail pyhsiological analysis.

[/COLOR]

I would suggest that you post a reference up for that. In fact, the more references available, the better generally.

 

[Whiskers]

I do know what pH cycling is.

However, I don't know where you're going with all this. I don't want to fluff around too much about this, it doesn't need to be excessively technical.

No 'fluff', just discussing how fluoride alters the chemistry and remineralisation of our teeth.

If you'd be so kind to make your point or argument clear and concise then I'll have something to direct my post toward.

My point is that you didn't acknowledge the effect of pH cycling in the context of a more volatile substance, 'fluoride' in the demineralising and remineralising of teeth.

Secondly, the affect of fluoridation on teeth and the holistic physiological effect that has on permenant teeth that has had little or no exposure to fluoridation in their development.

 

[Billyb]

My point is that you didn't acknowledge the effect of pH cycling in the context of a more volatile substance, 'fluoride' in the demineralising and remineralising of teeth.

OK then. I will acknowledge your query.

Under normal conditions, the surface of the enamel consists of hydroxyapetite. Enamel that has been exposed to fluoride (eg thorugh fluoridated water) is fluoroapetitie. In the context of pH, the critical pH of fluoroapetitie is higher than that of hyroxyapetite. Hence it is more resistant to demineralisation.

Hope that answers your question

 

[LifeChoices]

It's good for ya teeth!

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Perfectly safe! Er, Fluoride is pharmaceutical grade, and, um, there are reports that the UK gov use that prove it is safe, er, even though the authors disagree....



Must go back to TV now to wait for next instruction....