Whiskers
It's a small world
- Joined
- 21 August 2007
- Posts
- 3,266
- Reactions
- 1
Few comments
1. I haven't seen any of this 'disastrous fluorosis' that you keep referring to, yet. Only very mild cases (uncommonly), where it doesn't matter and it doesn't bother the patient. The benefits of less dental caries (from water fluoridation) easily outweighs this small issue. Dental caries FAR MORE problematic/expensive than mild fluorosis therefore benefit outweighs risk
2. Please provide evidence for other health issues you refer to eg bone disease.
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.
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.
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)[*]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 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.
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
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.
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!!!.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Firstly, fluoride is completely different to fluorine.
Fluorine, pervasive?
Are you kidding me? Fluorine doesn't exist on its own on earth!!!!
No offense, but unless you are a dentist, you would not be able to differentiate between mottling due to dental fluorosis and tooth decay.
Where did I say it had happened to me?Well, I apologise if it's happened to you,
So how have you established this loss of self esteem? Do you do a survey on the psyche of all your patients?I see many patients with loss of self esteem due to tooth decay (basically everyday),
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.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!!!.
Finally one contribution that cuts to the core of this entire debate.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?
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?
So, that is the solution: Rather than taking note of legitimate objections, we're marginalised as "miniscule vocal conspiracy theorists".if we gave in to the miniscule vocal conspiracy theorists, is increasing health costs, and jeopardising people's health.
Even the World Health Organisation (WHO), recognises
Skeletal Fluorosis. .
Yes, Fluorine and many of it's compounds including Fluoride are very pervasive in the body.
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.
Your discounting sincere arguments as "conspiracy theories" I find infuriating in the extreme.
No further comment.
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![*]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.
...there is no significant correlation between water fuoridation at 1ppm and bone disease.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?