Fluoride in tap water

Toothsmith

Here's an interesting snippet I found whilst looking for the survey.

http://www.bascd.org/news_details.php?newsid=9&offset=0&keyword=

And an abstract of the study

http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/58/2/136?ck=nck

This toxic effluent is looking better and better!

withabix

All this discussion about tiny amounts of fluoride in tap water...

Depending on where you live, your tap water will have had the following chemicals added to it in varying quantities:

Aluminium sulphate (remember that incident at Camelford...)
Di-Sodium orthophosphate
Sodium hypochlorite
Sodium hexametaphosphate
Phosphoric acid

(amongst others)

Also, if you live in an old house there is probably some lead pipework between the water main and you taps.

melancholly

i expect a whole heap of replies flaming me for this - but i think it's a good idea. i'm sure i had some kind of fluoride treatment on my teeth as a kid on advice from a dentist (lived abroad so possibly different advice to the uk).

i see it along the lines of the smoking ban in terms of the beneficial impact on public health in general. it's something very cheap and easy that can reduce the strain on the NHS. i completely understand a strong argument against mass medication in principle - i don't subscribe to that argument myself, but i think it is the biggest concern of this situation. the arguments that this will have a harmful effect have not convinved me one bit and the idea that this will be carried out on a nationwide scale without first being 100% sure of the safety issues is a dit daft in my opinion.

it reminds me of the MMR thing all over again - although 99.9% of studies say something is safe, it just takes one or two to have a weak result (certainly no 'proof') and that's what people cling to. the public mistrust in government sponsored scientists is very very scary - and although understandable to a degree, the huge trust placed in other scientists for no good reason is very very bizarre.

*goes to hide behind chair*

meekgeek

withabix wrote: »

All this discussion about tiny amounts of fluoride in tap water...

Depending on where you live, your tap water will have had the following chemicals added to it in varying quantities:

Aluminium sulphate (remember that incident at Camelford...)
Di-Sodium orthophosphate
Sodium hypochlorite
Sodium hexametaphosphate
Phosphoric acid

(amongst others)

and that can't be good can it?

so why is it good that we're being forced to ingest yet another toxic substance against our will, and the only advice I can get is to spend money on buying a filter?

I thought this was a money saving forum? Surely the best way to save money, mine and yours, is to fight against this proposal for mass medication?

I figured this forum would be populated by people that stood up for their freedoms, it seems not.

disappointed.

Toothsmith

Fluoride treatments are different from putting it in the water.

They are effective, but a lot more expensive to administer in the levels needed to be effective (2-3x per year).

They also require the child to be brought to a dentist at suitable intervals. Which assumes that there will be enough dentists available, and that parents all have the sense to take their children along. Pretty big assumptions!

Toothsmith

meekgeek wrote: »

I thought this was a money saving forum? Surely the best way to save money, mine and yours, is to fight against this proposal for mass medication?

I suppose that depends on how much you'll save on dental bills.

Cardelia

ETA = Edited To Add. Sorry if it confused you, it's just something I normally put in when editing posts, just to make it clear what bit I've changed.

meekgeek wrote: »

It's about choice. I choose not to smoke, I don't eat much bread, and especially not processed bread. I don't want my choice to not ingest flouride taken away from me.

You don't eat much bread. So, you eat some then. Doesn't matter if it's processed or not, unless you make it yourself from scratch (and I'm not sure the flour you use doesn't have additives in it anyway) you would have eaten government-promoted additives. If it is acceptable to you to add chemicals to bread (if it wasn't, you wouldn't eat bread...), why is it not ok to add fluoride to water?

Toothsmith referred to Ireland not being awash with broken-hipped OAPs. You replied with hip-replacement statistics for England. Ireland has fluoridated water, England does not (well, most of it doesn't). So what's the relevance of saying that hip replacements in England are increasing (for a variety of reasons) if you can't prove that hip replacements in Ireland are increasing due to the presence of fluoride in the water? It doesn't refute the point at all.

meekgeek wrote: »

A toxic substance ingested by the body over a sufficiently long period of time must have a toxic effect.

Must it? Says who? Vitamin C is a toxic substance yet you eat that every day. Are you suffering from vitamin C poisoning? You might want to look up the difference between a cumulative and acute poison.

tbs624 wrote: »

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).

Ah, apologies. I nabbed my summary from an article in the BMJ which referenced the BMA website and assumed it was accurate, so I didn't read the actual summary on the web. Which is interesting:

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/summary.pdf

The evidence of a benefit of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis

But the evidence of benefit was from studies of a higher quality than the fluorosis evidence. The study of benefit (Objective 1) rejected a large number of level C studies on the basis that they weren't good enough, yet the fluorosis study (Objective 4) was carried out almost exclusively on level C studies. If the reviewers feel confident enough to draw conclusions on the basis of level C data, why were level C studies not included in the benefit question?

As I understand it, if the panel want to be consistent with their own selection criteria, there are only two conclusions that they can draw. One is that fluoride has a proven health benefit (on the basis of level A and B studies, which were deemed good enough for inclusion). The other is that everything else is unproven (on the basis of level C studies). It's certainly not in favour of fluoridation and it can't say whether or not fluoride is safe, but it can (and does) say that fluoride is beneficial. So I don't see how the effectiveness question is still in doubt.

Toothsmith

Some anti-fs claim that fluoride in the water increases the risk of osteoporosis and bone fracture.

Fluoride (Admittedly in higher dosages) has been used for over 30 yrs as a treatment for osteoporosis.

This is an interesting study from Italy, where a population with a water supply of higher (natural) fluoride content than would be allowed for dental reasons (1.45ppm) were compared to a population with a low fluoride water supply.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10707346?dopt=Abstract

The higher fluoride population show a lower risk of osteoporosis and fractures!

If only all poisons could do this!!

melancholly

meekgeek wrote: »

I figured this forum would be populated by people that stood up for their freedoms, it seems not.

disappointed.

this isn't really the kind of arguement that's going to persuade me that you're right..... not really an effective way to change people's minds!

i'm happy to stand up for my freedom when i feel that my freedom is being unfairly encroached upon. in this situation, i don't - i can see that others do, but for me personally, it seems fair enough!

tbs624

Should maybe have welcomed both MeekGeek and Melancholly

I don’t have a problem with anyone having fluoride put on their own teeth - that’s part of their personal health choice but likewise I don’t expect others to enforce fluoride on me when my personal health choice differs from theirs, and alternative methods of delivery can be just as effective.

melancholly wrote: »

i see it along the lines of the smoking ban in terms of the beneficial impact on public health in general.

The difference with your comparison is that smokers are (1) doing something injurious to themselves (2) they are denying the right to reasonably fresh air to everyone around them, and (3 ) they have a measure of freedom in that they can still go and puff on their ciggies. Now with the fluoride argument (1) I look after my teeth (and make sure that my kids do) so I’m not injuring myself/them (2) I’m pay my taxes, and I support targeted NHS health care and people having topical fluoride if they need it, and yet (3) I’d be paying my water bill for water that doses me up without my consent and I’ll have no option.

melancholly wrote: »

the idea that this will be carried out on a nationwide scale without first being 100% sure of the safety issues is a dit daft in my opinion.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as being 100% sure of the safety, and that’s one of the key problems. The whole system of academic papers means that the reality is that no-one fully has the right answer. We can spend years at Universities or in research centres writing papers that threaten the status quo, or acting as peer reviewers and picking holes in the methodology of other studies. I said in a previous post that if all scientists agreed on everything there’d probably be no new scientific papers published on anything.

melancholly wrote: »

it reminds me of the MMR thing all over again - although 99.9% of studies say something is safe, it just takes one or two to have a weak result (certainly no 'proof') and that's what people cling to..

Now there’s a value judgement in there - bit of the old Daily Mail- “certainly no 'proof' “ and “cling” - as in, you believe, I cling? :undecided There is “evidence” on both sides of the debate, and anyone who is interested enough to make the effort can search them out and look at both. Some of us have ATHENS passwords or subscriptions to appropriate journals, which does make it easier, but others can access them via public libraries. One poster on here is apparently a pretty recent science graduate yet says s/he can’t find papers, so deduces that there can’t be many. However, s/he then made some fundamental errors in quoting from other ones s/he did find. ( Apology for one aspect is noted - before I get jumped on ). It would, however, be naïve of any of us to not acknowledge the heavy behind-the-scenes lobbying that sways our decision-makers, and the large financial donations that are provided to push the “pro” argument. If there was more transparency on the funding issue I think some people might reconsider their views on what stands up as evidence and what doesn’t.

melancholly wrote: »

…………the public mistrust in government sponsored scientists is very very scary - and although understandable to a degree, the huge trust placed in other scientists for no good reason is very very bizarre

Can I clarify that what you’re saying that it scares you that people are mistrustful of govt-sponsored scientists (because you think that they should be trusted) , but its bizarre for people to trust any other scientists ( because you think they shouldn't be trusted) ? It’s not a case of me having particular faith in scientists who are proponents for either side: it’s a case of the pro-fluoridation supporters highlight a study that supports their view, and the anti-fluoridation tend to highlight those that support theirs. That’s no different from any other similar area. However, where there is any room for doubt over the health safety of all those who will be dosed with artificial fluoride, and whilst there are other means of getting fluoride out to those with decaying teeth ( & supporting them with dietary improvements & sufficient NHS-funded community dentists), then IMO it is inappropriate for anything to be added to the water supplies.

As a very basic start, you could always have a look at All Party Parliamentary Group against fluoridation out of interest or what the Green party have to say on the matter - you may have to look a bit lower down the google ranks than the slick well- funded websites of the “pro-f" lobby but they are still out there, honest!

melancholly wrote: »

*goes to hide behind chair*

You can some out now melancholly, that wasn’t too bad was it?