Fluoride

The study out today should end the debate.

Children's tooth decay is worst in Queensland, and decay in general is also very bad in Bunbury and Busselton where there is no fluoride.

End of story.

chops_a_must said:

The study out today should end the debate.

Children's tooth decay is worst in Queensland, and decay in general is also very bad in Bunbury and Busselton where there is no fluoride.

End of story.

Click to expand...

link?

wayneL said:

link?

Click to expand...

Yup.

Fluoridated water puts Australia's children in top 10 in world dental health

Monday, 17 December 2007

Children in Australia have better oral health than children in most other countries, due largely to fluoridated water, according to new research conducted at the University of Adelaide.

A new report into water fluoridation and children's dental health has been released today by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). The report contains the findings of research conducted by the AIHW Dental Statistics and Research Unit at the University of Adelaide.

"At any given age, in both baby teeth and permanent teeth, children who live in areas with optimal fluoridated water have less tooth decay than those from areas with low fluoride levels," says the report's author, Mr Jason Armfield.

"These differences in disease experience between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas were as high as 66% for seven-year-olds," Mr Armfield says.

Optimal water fluoridation was associated with better dental health for both five to six-year-old and 11 to 12-year-old children regardless of the socioeconomic status of the area in which the children lived.

The report, Water fluoridation and children's dental health: The Child Dental Health Survey, Australia 2002, found that compared to children in other countries, Australian 12-year-olds have the seventh lowest average number of decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth.

"Although Australians are doing well in the world stakes, locally, oral health problems in children are still evident," Mr Armfield says.

In 2002, more than 47% of Australian six-year-olds had cavities in their baby teeth. On average, for every six-year-old child in Australia there were approximately two decayed, missing or filled baby teeth.

At the same time, more than 42% of 12-year-olds had cavities in their permanent teeth. For every 12-year-old in Australia, there was approximately one decayed, missing or filled permanent tooth.

Levels of dental decay in children varied around Australia, with the average number of decayed, missing or filled deciduous teeth (among five to six-year-olds) highest in Queensland and the Northern Territory, and lowest in Western Australia and South Australia.

The number of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth in 12-year-olds was highest for the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland (which does not currently have state-wide fluoridation) and Tasmania, and lowest for South Australia and the Northern Territory.

"Variations by state and territory reflect underlying population levels of disease as well as differences in the targeting of services," Mr Armfield says.

The AIHW Dental Statistics and Research Unit is based in the Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health at the University of Adelaide's School of Dentistry.

Click to expand...

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news23461.html

wayneL said:

link?

Click to expand...

Seconded!

Come on Chops, you purport to be a professional. Don't you remember from uni that any quotes or assertions of fact from other peoples work should be referenced.

You should know better than making an all encompassing statement like "The study out today should end the debate"... without even referencing the study.

Until you can layout all the material from this study for scrutiny and cross examination, this has more flavour of political propoganda than professionalism. You aren't a member of a political party, are you?

I want to know:

1. who sponsored the 'study'
2. who conducted it
3. what were the all important terms of reference, and last but not least
4. what raw stastictics and methodology was used to reach the results quoted.

Whiskers said:

I want to know:

1. who sponsored the 'study'
2. who conducted it
3. what were the all important terms of reference, and last but not least
4. what raw stastictics and methodology was used to reach the results quoted.

Click to expand...

'zackley.

I've read hundreds of these things in another field (equine exercise physiology). Most were total sh!te on the above basis.

chops_a_must said:

The number of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth in 12-year-olds was highest for the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland (which does not currently have state-wide fluoridation) and Tasmania, and lowest for South Australia and the Northern Territory.

Click to expand...

The Australian Capital Territory has fluoride in their water, so how can they then have the highest incidence of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth in 12-year-olds? As Pauline Hanson would say, please explain.

Children in Australia have better oral health than children in most other countries, due largely to fluoridated water, according to new research conducted at the University of Adelaide.

Click to expand...

What 'most other countries' are being talked about here? As most European countries have no fluoride in their water and have at least equal if not better DMFT. Also the reduction in DMFT in those countries seems to show that they initially had a greater problem than Australia to start off with, so one would then wander what they did different to Australia that they achieved such great results.

Whiskers said:

Seconded!

Come on Chops, you purport to be a professional. Don't you remember from uni that any quotes or assertions of fact from other peoples work should be referenced.

You should know better than making an all encompassing statement like "The study out today should end the debate"... without even referencing the study.

Until you can layout all the material from this study for scrutiny and cross examination, this has more flavour of political propoganda than professionalism. You aren't a member of a political party, are you?

I want to know:

1. who sponsored the 'study'
2. who conducted it
3. what were the all important terms of reference, and last but not least
4. what raw stastictics and methodology was used to reach the results quoted.

Click to expand...

Wtf?

It's done by a government body.

The links for all the important people are in the article.

I'm sure you can get that yourself if you ask, and if you have the inclination to look, considering you seem to care about it so much.

Given it was done within a government body, I don't think you'll have a problem getting those.

I wouldn't have thought I would need to spell it out considering it was very widely reported.

These studies are peer reviewed and scrutinised before publication.

Never the less. Here is where the original survey is, what looks to be the basis of this report:

http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/

Plus a tonne of other articles and specific statistics.

Man, there's so many precious people in this thread.

If you don't want fluoride in your drinking water, filter it, or drink bottled water. Simple. (just recycle all those plastic bottles)

As the Dalai Lama says: "If there is a way to overcome the suffering, then there is no need to worry; if there is no way to overcome the suffering, then there is no use in worrying."

BraceFace said:

Whiskers, you are right, some of my comments are fairly broad statements. The thing is, and this is the essence of my last "emotional brat tantrum syndrome" comment, is that I have a significant other life outside my nom-de-plume Braceface.

Click to expand...

Then wouldn't it be much quicker and to the point if you just addressed the points I raised.

Whiskers, I have done the study and I have put in the hard yards to earn my qualification ...

As I have stated before, I am not a lobbbyist, I just work at the coalface of the dental health industry, and I see, almost every day, the benefits of fluoride to dental health. That's how I form my educated OPINION.That and many years of tertiary training. I'm not sure how you form your opinion - perhaps you would like to state your qualifications for the record.

Click to expand...

Well, I,m not one to brag, cos I'm sure there are many with more and better qualifications on this forum than I, but if it pleases you...

I never failed a subject at school, sorry I think I failed 1 in high school when I lost most of the term in hospital, but passed everything else, even won a scholarship from high school. Always seemed to be appointed team captain, class captain, house captain, or something else captain, started in Scouts in primary school and appointed patrol leader from outset, later group leader.

Worked as civil construction supervisor in private enterprise and local government for awhile with experience among other things, in town water processing plants and reticulation systems.

Have a Bachelor of Business degree majoring in accounting and law... I guess it's the legal cross examination, substantiation and auditing requirements that you are having trouble with... and...

In Recognition of Outstanding Scholastic Achievement and Excellence has
been granted membership of the Golden Key International Honour Society
and is hereby granted all the Rights, Honours, and Priviliges
pertaining to the Society.​

I have held agricultural chemical user accredetation (NSCA), accredeted plant breeder and seed producer (QDPI), supervised and collaberated with TAFE lectures to provide field training and assessement for Horticultural traineeships and field trips for Associate Diploma of Applied Science (Horticulture) students a number of times.

I have served a number of years as president and treasurer of various industry and community organisations.

I have had intensive training and accreditation as a facilitator in group facilitation conflict resolution.

I own and operate two business ABN's, one sole trader, the other a propietry company and descretionary trust which I have operated for many years.

Geses, if I tell you more you will know what size joks I take and which toes have tinea.

OK, am I high enough up the socioeconomic ladder and educated enough, experienced enough, bright enough for you to give me a concise, as much technical jargon as you like, response to my earlier questions like a professional now?

Anyhow, picking up the theme from Sprinter:

Reverse osmosis is one way, another is to have install a 500 gallon rainwater tank and use that exclusively for drinking. Takes hardly any room, one rain fills it and it and that lasts ages.

You can put a simple particle filter on if worried about birdy doodoos and dust etc.

chops_a_must said:

Busselton where there is no fluoride.

End of story.

Click to expand...

Busselton's water tastes pretty damn nice though, supplied by the local water board which has absolutely nothing to do with the state water authority.
Not sure how many large towns have there own water board in west oz, can't be many.

Coming from a complete ignoramus on the pro's/cons of insitu fluoride addition to scheme water................. I'm not into Gov's adding anything adhoc to the food chain,wouldn't trust there research as far as I could kick it !.

wayneL said:

Anyhow, picking up the theme from Sprinter:

Reverse osmosis is one way, another is to have install a 500 gallon rainwater tank and use that exclusively for drinking. Takes hardly any room, one rain fills it and it and that lasts ages.

You can put a simple particle filter on if worried about birdy doodoos and dust etc.

Click to expand...

Rain water tanks is what I have grown up with and still have. I didn't have any extraudinary trouble with teeth decay. My kids, left home now, but as far as I know still have all their teeth without fluoridation.

My gripe is I was considering buying a place on the coast (in a town water supply area) to retire into, but now having second thoughts... might build new in rural area again.

Also, my elderly mum now lives in the city and is diagnosed allergic to a couple of things including fluoride and has been discussing the option of a rain water tank. She is also concerned that frequent bathing in it will cause a reaction. But like Julia and others she is cranky that the so called minority who are allergic to fluoride should have to suffer the inconvience and expense of making other arrangements.

Sprinter79 said:

Man, there's so many precious people in this thread.

If you don't want fluoride in your drinking water, filter it, or drink bottled water. Simple. (just recycle all those plastic bottles)

Click to expand...

Sprinter, I guess you are talking a bit tongue-in-cheek here, but seriously though, people are precious.

For me the problem is that our society is becoming overconsumist (if that is a word) continually pushing more consumption of everything now including fluoride to allegedly fix a health problem that is primiarly caused by over consumption of processed foods particularly sugars. The medical archives record the relationship of increasing teeth decay with the commercialisation of sugar cane and beet crops to produce sugars to add to the diet, I think from about the 1700's.

Surely educating those people who start feeding their babies with high sugar drinks to not give their babies refined sugars and for the general population to consume less food, particularly sugars, is a more logical and effective way of maintaining better dental and overall health.

The problem is that Governments and business need as much consumption as they can get to improve their bottom line. Hence the flawed idealology to continually consume more things to rectify problems and side effects of other consumption, when often one can cure the problem by removing the (consumed) cause better than trying to limit the effects by consuming something different.

Saliva is our natural protection against tooth decay. Many medications including from memory, antihistamines, anti-anxiety medications and blood pressure medications are a few that come to mind at this hour, actually also reduce salivation as a side effect, consequently reducing our natural defence against decay.

Fluoride has its side effects also as acknowledged by an earlier post about fluoride poisoning by an american medical site.

One thing that I so far cannot find any evidence of is the relationship between the alleged safe amount of fluoridation in the water supply and the variable amount of additional enviornmental fluoride pollution (natural fluoride as some term it) in areas of certain industries that pollute it. Nobody wants to talk about the two in the same conversation. Especially on the QLD gov site I could find no mention of fluoride as an enviormental pollutant, but plenty of talk of fluoride as being 'natural' 'occurring everywhere' and 'good' for us.

One of the things that fluoride does is also reduce ones amount of salivation. It also alters the behaviour of enzymes and strongly attracts calcium disturbing the behaviour of blood circulation and deposition of calcium in bones and the brain tissues.

I guess the point is that fluoride is a nonbiodegradable poison that accumulates in the body, soil, fruit and veg, everything the fluoridated water comes in contact with. The pro fluoridation argument is that 1 ppm fluoride is safe to consume. But everytime you use it to water your veg garden the concentration builds up in those fruit and veg as well as on the surface. Fluoride contamination of rural properties accumulates in the crops and livestock that we use. Fluoride accumulation up to 3ppm was recorded on californian crops for export to the EC. The produce was being rejected and I understand that californian farmers have since undertaken to eliminate all and anything that contributes to fluoride deposition in their enviornment.

Given that our gov still says personal hygene is the best defence against tooth decay and if you are in the majority of the population who are responsible about their dental health, why would you want a dubious mass medication chemical in your water supply at all, that is in effect only going to benifit (allegedly) only the few who don't keep good dental hygene.

The majority are not going to get any benifit at all unless you lower your personal dental hygene standards so the mass medication will allegedly act as a safety net.

Ignoring the safety aspects for a moment, just think of the economics. Does it really stack up. Would you pay to treat 100% of the water when only about 1% or less of it is used for drinking and only a fraction of that 1% is in the poor dental hygene catagory. Wouldn't it be far better targeted to provide fluoridated water bottles for the target lower socioeconomic areas or for anyone that wanted it?

I wouldn't say the majority of people fit into the 'responsible about their dental health' category.

Once again, it is becoming more complicated than it needs to be. If you don't want fluoride in the water, use bottled water, or filter it.

For example, I am lactose intolerant. Most foods in our western diets have lactose in them, even some medicines, so I have to be careful what I consume. Therefore, I actively seek out foods which don't contain lactose. Simple. (Not quite the same, but an example none the less)

There are solutions, so there is no need to cry over spilt milk (or water in this instance).

Sprinter79 said:

I wouldn't say the majority of people fit into the 'responsible about their dental health' category.

Once again, it is becoming more complicated than it needs to be. If you don't want fluoride in the water, use bottled water, or filter it.

For example, I am lactose intolerant. Most foods in our western diets have lactose in them, even some medicines, so I have to be careful what I consume. Therefore, I actively seek out foods which don't contain lactose. Simple. (Not quite the same, but an example none the less)

There are solutions, so there is no need to cry over spilt milk (or water in this instance).

Click to expand...

Sprinter, you seem quite intelligent, can communicate and articulate yourself well in a pleasant manner.

So I hope you don't mind a bit of a personality observation. I note somewhat of a contradiction in your logic... well more of a behavoural style.

You use the phrase becoming more complicated than it needs to be quite often. But in reference to things that are well beyound your control and influence you don't seem to object to them getting more complicated, eg processed foods with more additives and now processed water supplies with more fluoride.

Some of the many complications in life obviously affect you, but your behavioural style seems to be somewhat amiable in that you tend to avoid dealing with these material complications and go along with the group opinion rather than argue, because relationships are important for you and you just want to smooth over conflicts to try to keep cohesian in your community.

To that end you accept having to work harder to manage your choices (food types) as a simple solution.

My late father was quite amiable and largely blase about the safety of toxic substances in the evviornment, accepting assurances that everything was safe. He died a premature death from an agressive abdominal cancer, not too unlike the asbestos victims and James Hardie.

I'm sorry to hear about your Lactose intolerance. Not sure whether you have the primary or secondary form, but there are estimates from 5% to 10% of Australians suffer, mostly from Secondary Lactose intolerance. The percentages are much higher in Aisian, Hispanic, African and Aboriginal ancestry. The problem is becoming more endemic as a consequence of caucsian culture imposing and promoting an excessively high consumption of refined foods for commercial reasons onto other cultures where it is not natural.

Given the following information, can you and all these people just in this one health catagory, afford to be blase about the consumption of fluoride!

Is the cost of keeping the peace and not rocking the boat, worth your health and longevity?

Anything that damages the gut lining, even subtly, can cause secondary lactose intolerance. The enzyme lactase is produced in the very tips of folds of the intestine, and anything that causes damage to the gut may wipe off these tips and reduce the enzyme production
http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/lactose.html

Click to expand...

Pathophysiology: Fluoride has several mechanisms of toxicity. Ingested fluoride initially acts locally on the intestinal mucosa. It can form hydrofluoric acid in the stomach, which leads to GI irritation or corrosive effects. Following ingestion, the GI tract is the earliest and most commonly affected organ system.

Once absorbed, fluoride binds calcium ions and may lead to hypocalcemia. Fluoride has direct cytotoxic effects and interferes with a number of enzyme systems; it disrupts oxidative phosphorylation, glycolysis, coagulation, and neurotransmission (by binding calcium).
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic181.htm

Click to expand...

Whiskers, it would probably interest you to know that I am a union delegate and a Govt Inspector, so I have no trouble sticking my head above the parapet, and have done on many occasion often to my own detriment for the 'greater good' of my electorate, or those people who's health and safety I look after.

Some things are worth fighting for and others are not, the key is in finding which ones are REALLY worth your time.

As I've said previously, and I draw heavily on the philosophy he promotes, the Dalai Lama suggests "If there is a way to overcome the suffering, then there is no need to worry; if there is no way to overcome the suffering, then there is no use in worrying."

For the minority that are suffering because of fluoride in the water, there are solutions, hence there is no need to worry, just go and do them.

Things are as simple as you want them to be. But, at the same time, things can be as complicated as you let them be.

I have been following this debate with some interest and amusement.

I find that I am continually frustrated by the minority groups in our society. If the majority benefit from fluoride then in my opinion LET THERE BE FLUORIDE!!

Buy the drops or tablets or whatever else you need to take the fluoride out and get on with more important things.

Don't get hung up on the little things ...

For the record, here are some pretty decent solutions at reasonable prices:

http://www.filterwizard.com.au/filters_reverse_osmosis.asp $550 delivered

http://www.filterwizard.com.au/filters_reverse_osmosis_wall_mount.asp $180 delivered

Here we go, time to knock this little puppy out of the Ballpark...

VIDEO: The Flouride Deception ==> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2886269353175462948&hl=en-GB

Flouride Action Network ==> http://www.fluoridealert.org/

Enjoy your industrial waste...

Sprinter, I'm sorry that you idolise a pacifist, an amiable in excess.

I'm sorry that you are frustrated and stuck in your social style and don't recognise the implications of that, one of which is intolerence of minority groups and individual rights.

It seems that you have had some sort of awful experience that has caused you to diminish ones empathy for individual rights in favour of the greater good. I could go on for ages about profiling people by the words and phrases they use, but you are not interested in all that detail and information.

If you don't ask the right question you will never find the answer and never truely understand... you don't know what you don't know.

Good luck with your lactose intolerance and I hope you come to peace with yourself.

Hugh, I'm also sorry that you get frustrated and unable to engage in dialogue and default to debate.

It is unfortunate that you also cannot tolerate dissent and trivialise as 'little things' the discomfort, inconvience and expense of people who need or want to avoid adding an unnecessary carcenegic poison to our system.

What can be gleaned from both of you is that you have a strong emotional attachment to your beliefs and a burning desire to influence people, hence you couldn't resist makeing a profound statement on this thread rather than engage in inquisitive dialogue.

Contrary to your belief system, that is a behavoural weakness. It predisposes you to manipulation by your emotions.

Again it is a selfawareness issue that will come to you when you are ready.

Wow Whiskers, you should go on Oprah or some **** :

Why are you sorry that I 'idolise a pacifist'? I don't recall saying that I idolise him, just that I draw heavily on the Buddist philosophy.

Frustrated and stuck? Please explain.... actually don't. Your amateurish psych is almost as bad as Kimosabi's snake oil peddling. At least you're not saying that teeth can grow back.

I'm not going to take the bait on the other stuff, as it doesn't relate to the topic at hand.

NB- I don't think it is appropriate to make assumptions, and publish them in this way, on people's personality based on what they write on a forum. With your training in conflict resolution, you should know that you can't make a full assessment in this way.