Fluoride in tap water

mech_2

From what has been said by the pro-water-fluoridation contributors in this thread, I would conclude that they've destroyed their own argument. If the amount of dietary fluoride intake due to tap water fluoridation is insignificant in comparison with other sources, then surely it has no pharmacological benefit and as such would be a waste of money. Somewhere in this argument those "reliable" (in capitals or not) sources aren't actually that reliable.

And if the 6mg figure for a cup of tea is correct, from what I've read it would take less than 20 years for someone drinking three cups of tea a day to be crippled by skeletal fluorosis.

Also, contrary to what has been said in this thread, it appears fluoride does accumulate in the body, so comparisons with non-cumulative toxins also seem to be bogus.

tbs624

Evil Dan - an example of what Cardelia meant by this one:

Cardelia wrote:

Actually, I complained that people were not quoting the entirety of a paragraph. That's slightly different to an entire post. I have no problem with people quoting paragraphs in isolation, in fact I have no problem with people quoting one or two lines, as long as the context of the point I am making is not misrepresented. On that occasion, I felt it was.

was when s/ he her/himself recently quoted a snippet from one of my posts :

Thus, you may see the issue as a simple “prove it’s harmful or shut up”

with no punctuation to indicate that it was part of a larger paragraph and longer sentence as follows:

tbs624 wrote:

Commenting on related issues & sharing one’s own thoughts on the topic, rather than joining in on another poster’s rhetorical musings, does not IMO constitute dodging an issue, it’s more that in any discussion each and everyone of us will view some points as more central to the argument than others .Thus, you may see the issue as a simple “prove it’s harmful or shut up” , whereas I see it more as “ this can be dealt with by targeted health care & education and its ethically wrong to medicate the whole of the general population without their consent because of a lifestyle health issue affecting a small proportion of the community.

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

For the greater good?

But who is the arbiter of what constitutes the greater good? Would it also be for the greater good if, say, something could be added to the water that made people dislike the taste of alcohol – a sort of Bitrex effect? We could argue that alcoholics often make a mess in the street, they cost employers money, their partners suffer, their connected health problems take up a considerable amount of NHS funding , and their children have a terrible time of it. The alcoholics won’t seek help and their families often don’t know how to. Do you know there's this industry that suggested we have a look at this stuff that they get left over from their processing, it costs them so much to dispose of this stuff but with a bit of further tweaking we could kill 2 birds with one stone….just think, no more rowdies singing outside your window, empty pubs could become dental clinics…

IMO it would work for the greater good if people would stop eating junk, clean their teeth properly and if there were sufficient NHS dentists. As part of that I also think it would be for the greater good if the purveyors of sugary & fatty junk foods were slapped with massive taxes on their foul products and the money from those taxes went directly to the dental/medical services sector.

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote:

Your teeth are formed, so that won't affect you anyway - you'll just get the protection from root caries which will lower your bills, and a little protection against heart disease, which may well keep you earning for longer!

That would mean an assumption that I have spent my life in a non-artificially fluoridated area and that I have no medical condition that, in itself or by virtue of any required medication, would pre-dispose me towards any harmful effects of fluoride being added to all water in the future. I haven’t asked for treatment of any future root caries nor against heart disease – my GP wouldn’t be permitted to medicate me against the likelihood of heart disease without my consent, my dentist wouldn’t start preventative work without my consent, so neither should a water company nor an SHA.

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

...Talking of fluoride content though, how many 'not in my water' people have tea?

A cup fo tea contains the fluoride equivalent of about 6 litres of theraputically fluoridated water.

Even accounting for the tea drinkers though, it's still very hard to get anywhere nearthe toxic doses.

I think many of us were already aware that fluoride is present in many other things:

tbs624 wrote:

When fluoridating the water supply, there is no way of controlling the individual’s received dose, because fluoride is also present in other things and people drink differing amounts of water, as another poster has already pointed out.

AFAIAA the York Review suggests that total fluoride exposure particularly in industrialised nations, had increased over the recent years, and that exposure to fluoride from other sources (rather than water) may alter the amount needed in water for optimum caries reduction.This was seen as a potential confounding factor in studies of correlation between water fluoridation and negative effects: as the sources of the fluoride exposure vary, exposure would need to be measured “ at the person level, rather than at the population level” It also said that, because of the potential toxicity of very high doses of fluoride, it would be sensible for any future studies to try to measure total fluoride intake.

All of which brings us back to one of the key points about the lunacy of just dosing everyone through the water with a one-size-fits-all measurement.

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote:

As for citing the 'All Parliamentary Group Against Fluoride' as a source, well?

Hardly a neutral sounding name is it? And MPs will say anything if there's a chance of a vote in it!

They weren’t mentioned for citation purposes– anything I have quoted in any post has been direct from a report. I quote:

tbs624 wrote:

As a very basic start, you could always have a look at the All Party Parliamentary Group against fluoridation out of interest or what the Green party have to say on the matter.

I have said elsewhere that IMO one of the problems is that so many people do look only at one side. And whilst I agree with what you say about MPs, can I clarify whether you are saying that only ant-f MPs are looking for votes and the “pro” MPs are doing what they do because they are altruistic?

Toothsmith wrote:

The best piece of information posted on this subject was by Cardelia. I have pasted it below. She found a link to the original York report.
I have seen this grossly missrepresented on Anti f sites.

and then check:

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).

Toothsmith wrote:

If you want to convince me of any serious negative effects of water fluoridation at a level of 1ppm, could you please post links to proper research, not sites with 'fluorideaction' 'fluoridewatch' 'dontlettheba$tard$poisonus' 'theyreouttogetyou' 'bibblebibblemenonthemoon' .com or similar in the link.

Thank you.

Its about being upfront really though, because at least their views are pretty clear, which is more than can be said for the likes of the BFS or the fluoride information service, or even the BDA and ADA . Now if the FIS was more open it would call its site www.fluoridationforthegulliblemasses.com or http://www.wevegotsomestuffwellhavetopaytodisposeofunlessyoudrinkit.org/

None of their " pro" publications make it clear who funds them all of which I’ve alluded to before:

tbs624 wrote:

I’d also like there to be some transparency on the funding behind the “pro-f” lobby - for example, who funds their research and the glossy leaflets: we know that the BFS is funded by subscription and taxpayers money, in the form of NHS grants but it’s not independent nor does it offer links to the research done by both sides. Is the situation similar to the medical profession & the pharm companies - do dentists get some fluoride freebies at the surgery , a couple of wall clocks and a few pens? Maybe an all-expenses paid weekend “conference” to hear about the benefits of fluoridation?

tbs624 wrote:

And the food company big boys are not in any way involved in the push for fluoride are they? They can still reel in their profits from poor quality junk foods, stacked high with sugar, because fluoride will absolve them from any possible responsibilities they ought to have towards the wider community.

tbs624 wrote:

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.

and then there was another poster ( Evil Dan?) on the same line too.

Actually, I do quite like the sound of 'www.dontlettheba$tard$poisonus' – would you mind if I register that one?;)

tbs624

Evil_Dan wrote: »

Oh thats brilliant. Wasn't DEFRA the people who told us that Mad Cow Diesease didn't exist?

Yes, it was the very same.........:D:D

laurajayne

withabix wrote: »

Spinach is about 8mg/kg, so best not eat too much of that either! There you go kids, you can tell mum that you're not eating that nice spinach she's put on your plate as it might actually kill you, or even worse, put marks on your teef.

Don't mean to pick you out in particular - I couldn't face the last 4 pages of this thread lol.

However, do you have any idea what it's like to live with the 'marks of your teef'? As a developing child, I didn't smoke, drink tea and the like. However I grew up in Hartlepool, had a fluoride toothpaste, and was also given fluoride by the dentist. (And no, toothsmith, I didn't eat toothpaste lol )

It's a cruel twist of nature that you start getting your adult teeth as you start getting more concious of how you appear to others - and we all know how cruel children can be. I have rather severe fluorosis. I did post a picture of my teeth previously, so if anyone is so inclined, they can see. I was bullied just because of the staining on my teeth.

As an adult, my dentist has quoted £3k to crown the teeth for me, so that for once, I can have a nice smile. Yes it's invasive, and drastic, but after bleaching (yeah, that so didn't work), and being told that veneers wouldn't help, it's the only option I have. Cos, I smile at anyone new, and they make immediate assumptions about me, due to the state of my teeth. Ok, so it's not life threatening, it's not a poison, but really, I'd rather they don't artifiucally put this stuff in the water. My parents though they were doing the best for me - and of course, when you realise that too much has been given, it's way too late!

Selfishly, I say blow the greater good, so 99.9% of children (statistic completely made up!) will have better dental health. Not like anyone is going to help the 0.01% who have suffered is it? No one is going to pay for my crowns. Although I appriciate that is a view point that very few people will share lol.

Toothsmith

Given fluoride by the dentist?

As in fluoride treatments in the surgery, or fluoride tablets?

I can't understand why a dentist in a fluoridated area would give fluoride tablets to a child.

Tablets are given whilst adult teeth are still developing.

If you are talking about fluoride treatments in the surgery, these are done after adult teeth have errupted, and I can't understand why he would do fluoride treatments on teeth marked by fluorosis.

Could you get a referral to Newcastle Dental Hospital for treatment?

laurajayne

Toothsmith wrote: »

Given fluoride by the dentist?

As in fluoride treatments in the surgery, or fluoride tablets?

I can't understand why a dentist in a fluoridated area would give fluoride tablets to a child.

Tablets are given whilst adult teeth are still developing.

If you are talking about fluoride treatments in the surgery, these are done after adult teeth have errupted, and I can't understand why he would do fluoride treatments on teeth marked by fluorosis.

Could you get a referral to Newcastle Dental Hospital for treatment?

My apologies Toothsmith - I was slightly wrong...having checked (as obviously I was a tad young to remember!) it was my Health Visitor that told my mother to give me fluoride drops in my milk. So my apologies to dentists everywhere I was born in Essex - but moved to Hartlepool not long after I was born...my parents had no idea about the fluoride in the water, and nobody told them to stop the drops. However, it is interesting that my little sister (by six years, and born up north) also has mild fluoride staining, that was just from the toothpaste and water.

I can't get a referral as I now live in Surrey