We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Fluoride in tap water
Options
Comments
-
I am so truly grateful that this country isn't governed by people that think if didn't do them any harm, or that there's a lot of it about it must be okay.
But I am not one of those. I am someone whom has drank the stuff for decades but you keep cutting that bit out when you quote me.at least some of our ministers have the good sense to question the disposal of waste products in our drinking water.
You fail to understand, not because you are thick but because you don't want to.
You think it is waste, but that is because it is what is left after a process that is primarily designed to produce something else. This is a by-product, not waste. Even if you think of it as waste that is not a bad thing.
Look at it this way, suppose a company was set up to make garden sheds from trees. It sawed the trees up and planed them into smooth planks and made the planks into shed. It then swept up the sawdust and wood shavings and put them in the bin because it thought of them as waste.
Then another company comes along and says "Hey, we can burn that sawdust and wood shavings to create heat, can we buy it from you." Is the sawdust and wood shavings industrial waste, or is it something that is useful to a company?
Put it another way, if a company is set up to create sawdust and wood shavings to sell to another company that wants to buy something to burn to create heat. And it is left with planks of wood, are the planks of wood industrial waste?
The process is the same, and the end products are the same. The only thing that changes is the primary purpose of starting the process.
Chemical or industrial waste is not necessarily something bad, it can be something that is just what is left when when the originator of the process has got when they set out to get..
Farmers feed cows so they can get milk from them, but the resulting waste product is highly sort by gardeners.I have never heard such nonsense argued in support of administering a toxic substance before.
Except you haven't proven it is toxic yet. Please don't forget that you are talking to someone who has drank what you call toxic for decades.I suspect that Geordie Joe was happy on the bromide too?
That just shows the quality of your argument. Petty to say then least.You really do have to fight against every injustice otherwise when you've let enough little ones go by, you wake up and find that it's too late and society, your country and the planet we live on has reached a tipping point that we can't get back from.
But it's not an injustice, it is actually nothing to be bothered about. You are against it because people you know nothing about but you have read what they write on the internet have told you to be against it.
I am not for it or against it, I don't care one way or the other. What I do care about is you quoting some bloke that wrote something on the internet and you believing it.
In the end it comes down to you saying saying someone said "if you drink this it might harm you" on the internet, and me saying "I drank it for decades and it didn't"
You believe what you read and I'll believe what I did.Can't you see that this is wrong? we should be fighting to get even cleaner water, taking the residual flouride out, not adding more of the filthy stuff in…
Nope, because I believe we shouldn't be making things cleaner because it just gives our immune system less to fight. Clean water means a weak.lazy immune system and that means we can't fight the stuff that really does us harm.
Sorry, but our bodies were meant to fight things. Man survived for millions of years without a clean water system. Then, 100 years after getting it if the water ain't clean we die. Clean is bad, it means our immune system doesn't have anything to fight and gets weaker. Then we die from things that shouldn't kill us.and we shouldn't be administering it willy nilly without full possession of the facts.
But I am in possession of the facts, it doesn't do any harm. Your facts are someone on the internet told you it might be bad. My facts are I have drank it for decades and it didn't do me, or the millions of others any harm.a Anti-biotics help people overcome infection - that's a good thing. Should we put low dose anti-biotics in the water?
No, because your body needs something to fight. It needs excersise, if it doesn't get that it becomes weak. You must give your immune system something to fight fight or it will become ineffective. In the same way that if you don't do excersise you will becoime weaker.I'll bet you'd say no -
And I bet I don't. If you knew me at all you would know that hygiene is the one thing I am really against.
It is bad to kill germs before they get into your body, let them in and let your immune system deal with them, it;'s what nature intended it for.
When I was young and my mate got the measles my mother dragged me down to is house and made me sit with him all day.Ibut you know why we aren't arguing about that? Anti-biotics cost money to produce, they aren't a waste product someone's trying to flush away.
I'd have thought mature people would be more open minded and prepared to listen.
Ho hum...
So did I, but you obviously aren't. All you can see is someone who doesn't think they way you do.
Claiming someone isn't open minded because they don't agree with you isn't clever, and it doesn't prove your point.
I could say you aren't mature and won't listen, because you don't agree with me. It won't make me right or you wrong, it just makes us different. I can live with that, but you obviously can't.
.0 -
Let's both go and read these papers and see what conclusion we come to:
http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html
;o)
No No, lets go drink water with fluoride added to it for 38 years then come back and discuss it,
Any daft !!!!!! can read and write, but lets see how many can survive drinking water for 38 years.
Go on, give me the name of everyone that has written about what might happen if you drink water with fluoride in it, then give me the name of everyone who has drank the same for decades.
OK, that's too hard. so give me the name of someone in here, who is against fluoride, and has NOT cut out the bit where I say I have drank water with fluoride in it for decades.0 -
It’s good to see some research being quoted instead of some of the nonsense from people who say that they don’t care, view it as unimportant and yet can’t stay away! However, there are some things here that are open for clarification.
The two reviews mentioned there are of different types - Yeung's was a Comment or Summary Review on one piece of work ie, that of Griffin, Regnier et al's (US) Review study. 20 studies were included in the final evidence, 11 of which looked at the effects of self-applied or clinically applied fluoride (of those 11 , 10 were RCTs & one didn't specify random assignment of treatment) The remaining 9 were studies on water fluoridation, and 8 of those were cross-sectional. A random effects model was used to estimate the effect size of fluoride (wider confidence intervals).I In Evidence Based Dentistry I found one review from last year:
C. Albert Yeung, Evidence Based Dentistry (2007) vol. 8, pp 5–6.
Which commented on an article also published in 2007:
S. O. Griffin, E. Regnier, P. M. Griffin and V. Huntley, J Dent. Res. 2007, vol. 86 (issue 5), pp 410-5
Both reviews indicate that the medical literature supports the idea that fluoride is beneficial to human beings of all ages:
So, it looks like water fluoridation is also beneficial to human beings of all ages.
Bear in mind these are reviews of the literature, not single studies in their own right, so the author(s) have looked at all the published studies which are out there and they show that overall, water fluoridation has a beneficial effect on health..
Yeung mentions that:- the use of cross-sectional studies mean that it was not possible to tell whether the observed differences in caries had always existed between these populations or whether they were the result of differing levels of water fluoride content between the study areas;
- restricting the studies to English language ones may have had an effect on the findings;
- further well-designed studies would be necessary “ to elucidate the effectiveness of fluoride among adults.”
I think you may have misquoted the findings of the York Review: although you are in good company (the BMA, the BDA,& the BFS, among others, have been castigated by Professor Sheldon the Chair of the Review panel for doing the same thing).There's also the Government-backed University of York study which showed that fluoride had no beneficial nor detrimental effects. Other literature disagrees on the beneficial effects, but I'm not finding much which disagrees on the detrimental effects.
The review cannot be said to show that fluoride had no beneficial nor detrimental effects. I quote:
“This review presents a summary of the best available and most reliable evidence on the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation.
Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken. As such, this review should provide both researchers and commissioners of research with an overview of the methodological limitations of previous research conducted in this area.
The evidence of a benefit of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms or whether there is an impact on social inequalities. This evidence on benefits and harms needs to be considered along with the ethical, environmental, ecological, costs and legal issues that surround any decisions about water fluoridation. All of these issues fell outside the scope of this review.”
( NB: the highlighting is my own) IMO It’s worth adding that the York Review included 214 studies. Prof.Sheldon’s rebuke to to BDA et al apparently included the following:
“The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe.”
“The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis."
“Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation.
So, as yet I'm still not convinced on the grounds of safety or effectiveness over other ways of dealing with dental decay, and we're still left with the forced medication issue......
0 -
Nobody is telling kids to drink tap water though. There's nothing to 'rebel' against. It's tap water, it's just there.
Being "just there" isn't enough though, is it?
If you are putting fluoride in the water, so that children with rotten teeth can drink it and benefit from the wonder-slurry, then the benefit will be wasted on them unless they do actually drink the stuff. If they prefer drinking fizzy sugary pop (hence the dental decay) then someone has to be responsible for getting them to drink the water instead.
A poster has already definitively informed us that you can't expect parents to be responsible for their children and you can't expect children to do as they're told..........so the capacity is there for a taking a horse to water, but you can't make it drink/swallow the fluoride scenario.0 -
Toothsmith wrote: »Mild fluorosis - the thing that up to 40 odd % of the population in a fluoridated area 'suffer' from is the odd small white fleck on a tooth. Probably not even been noticed by parents or the patient themselves.
As another poster has already said, a couple of pages back, fluorosis is evidence of toxicity within the body. Just remind us what happened to people's teeth with lead poisoning? A Burton's line is probably just an aesthetic issue too.
:rolleyes:Toothsmith wrote: »The only remarkable thing happening in areas where water is fluoridated to 1ppm is that the decay experience of the population is less than it would be without it.
Now that isn't accurate is it? IMO it's more the " decay experience" of a minority of the population, and not necessarily at a greater level than if they were to have fluoride from a targetted source.0 -
Could we have some sources for this?Toothsmith wrote: »But decay levels are on the rise - all over!0 -
geordie_joe wrote: »But I am not one of those. I am someone whom has drank the stuff for decades but you keep cutting that bit out when you quote me.
Left it in.Man survived for millions of years without a clean water system. Then, 100 years after getting it if the water ain't clean we die. Clean is bad, it means our immune system doesn't have anything to fight and gets weaker. Then we die from things that shouldn't kill us.
We existed for millions of years without adding flouride to our water.But I am in possession of the facts, it doesn't do any harm. Your facts are someone on the internet told you it might be bad. My facts are I have drank it for decades and it didn't do me, or the millions of others any harm.
LOL! that's science?
We may not agree, but I'm entitled to my view. I respect yours, but you appear intent on belittling mine.
How rude.0 -
geordie_joe wrote: »No No, lets go drink water with fluoride added to it for 38 years then come back and discuss it,
Any daft !!!!!! can read and write, but lets see how many can survive drinking water for 38 years.
Go on, give me the name of everyone that has written about what might happen if you drink water with fluoride in it, then give me the name of everyone who has drank the same for decades.
OK, that's too hard. so give me the name of someone in here, who is against fluoride, and has NOT cut out the bit where I say I have drank water with fluoride in it for decades.
This is such a foolish stance.
I know people that smoked for years and didn't die of lung cancer.
Real Science doesn't work that way. A toxic substance ingested by the body over a sufficiently long period of time must have a toxic effect.
That is science. Your argument is ridiculous, but it's pointless to challenge you. I shall forthwith respect your right to a enjoy a 'village idiot' view of the world, acknowledge your views and ignore any further comments you might make.
I urge other readers to do the same.0 -
Could we have some sources for this?
I'm trying to track that down.
It comes from the BASCD Coordinated Epidemiological Program Surveys, and it was displayed as a rather complicated slide at a lecture I attended recently. The figures compare 2003/4 with 2006/7
I have emailed the lecturer, but am awaiting a reply. Trying to google it in the meantime!How to find a dentist.
1. Get recommendations from friends/family/neighbours/etc.
2. Once you have a short-list, VISIT the practices - dont just phone. Go on the pretext of getting a Practice Leaflet.
3. Assess the helpfulness of the staff and the level of the facilities.
4. Only book initial appointment when you find a place you are happy with.0 -
http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=2493
Not what I wanted, but this is from he American Dental Association showing something similar.
Overall decay rates are marginally down, but amongst the youngest children, decay experience is up.
That's what the slide I'm thinking of from UK studies showed as well, and the lecturer said it was a world-wide phenomena at the moment.
When I get to the BASCD site, a lot of the info needs a subscription to access.
I will post something if I get a useable reply from the speaker though.
If I can work out how to post the Powerpoint slide I have, I'll do that too!How to find a dentist.
1. Get recommendations from friends/family/neighbours/etc.
2. Once you have a short-list, VISIT the practices - dont just phone. Go on the pretext of getting a Practice Leaflet.
3. Assess the helpfulness of the staff and the level of the facilities.
4. Only book initial appointment when you find a place you are happy with.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards