Fluoride in tap water

Toothsmith

When in doubt, go back to the emotive words.

tbs624

No doubt on my part whatsoever

meekgeek

Toothsmith wrote: »

When in doubt, go back to the emotive words.

when in doubt go on a personal attack.

I haven't seen you provide a shred of supporting evidence in your claim that mass medication in this way won't be harmful in the long term.

However we're lost in the detail. The real issue here is that the general population of the UK will be medicated against their will and likely without their knowledge, to ostensibly prevent tooth decay in a small minority, using a manufacturing by-product that is highly toxic in concentration, difficult and expensive to dispose of and that has not been tested for its long term cumulative effect on humans in any controlled scientific fashion.

Dosage by dilution in drinking water is very hit and miss, and as has been mentioned many times, some people already ingest doses of fluoride daily based on their lifestyle, so some people will be getting far more than the so-called "safe" limits (which, by the way, are much higher than the oft-spouted naturally occurring levels)

The water companies have passed the decision making on to the health authorities. Why? Perhaps so they don't get sued down the line.

Flouridation of the water supply is just insane given that we don't know what it might do long term on massive scale.

There is evidence in flouridated areas that it isn't solving the tooth decay problem, and the only reason it's being pushed forward is that someone has a problem that they'd like to solve (and that problem isn't tooth decay!)

oh, and just because I stop posting, doesn't mean you've won your argument.

geordie_joe

tbs624 wrote: »

Please stop peddling the fallacy that what will be used to pollute our drinking water supplies is something benign and natural.

Please stop telling me not to post things you don't agree with!!!!!!!!

I didn't actually post anything other than a link to a news article that you didn't read. If you had read it your would not have posted the above. Instead you would have seen it was just an article that said Southampton council wanted to put fluoride in the water and some people were against it. It then when on to give both sided an opportunity to put their point of view.

tbs624 wrote: »

Neither sodium fluorosilicate nor fluorosilicic acid have been tested and passed as safe for human consumption, in any country.

It was tested by me for decades, and by many thousands of others.

tbs624 wrote: »

For the public to be able to vote on this issue they need to be in possession of the truth, not the deceptions fed to us time and time again by the powerful pro-fluoridation lobby, endorsed by those members of the dental profession who regurgitate without challenge what they are fed as they progress through dental schools.

No, to vote they just need a ballot paper and have the sense not to believe the anti-fluoride brigade's lies.

tbs624 wrote: »

Let’s see a full account of exactly how these substances used for water fluoridation are produced

How it is produced is irrelevant. You have simply latched onto the phrase "chemical waste" and panicked. If you haven't done this then why don't you give us a full account of how it is produced.

tbs624 wrote: »

and let’s have a full account of the promotion costs, details of inducements offered for fluoride promotion, and full details of who funds the pro-lobby ( the phospate fertiliser companies, the sugar producers, our very own Government because they can’t get a grip on the NHS….??)

You don't know any of that is happening.

tbs624 wrote: »

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that less than 5% of the world population has an artificially-fluoridated water supply.

Less than 5% of the worlds population has access to free health care, should we ban that to?

tbs624 wrote: »

Water fluoridation has not been proved to be either safe or effective:

It has by me and the millions who have been drinking it for decades.

tbs624 wrote: »

What’s the saying “the solution to pollution is dilution” ?

The problem with this "chemical waste" as you call it, is it's going to end up in the water anyway. They've got the stuff and have to get rid of it some way. If they don't put it in the water in a controlled way and call it a health measure, they'll dump it in the water and call it pollution. Either way, it goes in the water.

tbs624 wrote: »

IMO for the pollution to be diluted in everyone’s drinking water is an unacceptable totalitarian measure.

Yes but that's all it is, your opinion.

tbs624

Bless you GJ..... that's such a rant, especially since my post had nothing to do with yours...................:rotfl:

Incidentally, it’s really clever that you can work out what people might have read, what they may or may not have done if they had, what they do and don’t know………a skill like that is pretty rare & ought to be worth money, and it should have alerted you to the fact that I already knew about what was happening in Southampton.

geordie_joe wrote: »

Yes but that's all it is, your opinion.

...... which is thankfully shared by many others and is just as valid as anyone else's. Unless of course their's is more than an opinion because they have magical skills and special powers

geordie_joe

tbs624 wrote: »

Bless you GJ..... that's such a rant, especially since my post had nothing to do with yours...................:rotfl:

It's taken you all night to think that up, at what time did you give up trying to defend yourself?

You posted after mine without any indication of who you were talking to, therefore it is taken that you were talking to the previous poster.

If you think you can show that you weren't talking to me then say which post your were replying to.

tbs624 wrote: »

Incidentally, it’s really clever that you can work out what people might have read, what they may or may not have done if they had, what they do and don’t know………a skill like that is pretty rare & ought to be worth money, and it should have alerted you to the fact that I already knew about what was happening in Southampton.

Well now you've seen the link you know what is happening. If you'd mentioned Southampton before I posted it I might have believed you.

We can all be wise after the fact.

tbs624 wrote: »

...... which is thankfully shared by many others and is just as valid as anyone else's.

Nope, your opinion is as valid to you as mine is to me. It's just mine is based on decades of doing what you think might damage me.

Yours is based on what?

You also ignored important points. like the full account of how this stuff is produced. Would you care to tell us how it is produced?

Cardelia

tbs624 wrote: »

Please stop peddling the fallacy that what will be used to pollute our drinking water supplies is something benign and natural. Neither sodium fluorosilicate nor fluorosilicic acid have been tested and passed as safe for human consumption, in any country.

They don't need to be tested. In water, both those compounds are hydrolysed (i.e. they react with water) so they don't actually exist by the time the water reaches your tap. The compounds which need to be tested are the products of the hydrolysis. In this case, sodium fluoride and, presumably, hydrochloric acid (unless you live in an area where water is naturally alkaline, in which case discount the acid). I believe sodium fluoride has been tested on humans and found to be safe, and hydrochloric acid is found in human beings anyway.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that less than 5% of the world population has an artificially-fluoridated water supply. As mentioned in a previous post, many of those who initially had artifical fluoridation have later stopped adding it to the water: many other countries have stated their intention not to fluoridate, and where countries do currently have it there is pressure for it to be discontinued.

Well, parts of china and india (a third of the world's population between them) have naturally high fluoride levels. As do parts of western africa and south america. So why would they need to add fluoride? Surely areas of high natural fluoridation should be discounted from calculations like this?

Anyway, this link gives the percentage of the population of some countries who receive artificially fluoridated water. The world population is about 6.8 billion. 5% of that is 340 million. If you do the calculation using the given percentages and current estimates of country population, it comes to almost 400 million. So around 6%.

Water fluoridation has not been proved to be either safe or effective: however, topical application of fluoride may be helpful for those who have poor diets and inadequate dental care and is readily available.

The part in bold is, in part, a barefaced lie. There is a lot of data out there in peer-reviewed journals which proves the efficacy of fluoride. I linked to the York report earlier in the thread which reviewed all the available studies and it came to the conclusion that fluoride has a beneficial effect on human health. You're well aware of this - in fact, you even highlighted in bold (post #94) the report's conclusion that water fluoridation does have a beneficial effect. So please stop peddling the fallacy that the efficacy of water fluoridation has not been proven.

Pandora123_2

Further reading for anyone interested:

Senior doctors allege lack of evidence on fluoride safety

Health experts bare teeth on fluoride

Fluoride in drinking water

tbs624

Cardelia wrote: »

They don't need to be tested.................

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint, however I , and many others, think that they do, since sodium fluorosilicate is a registered Class II Poison and, as a complex derivative of HF, fluorosilicic acid would also come under that registration. These substances are neither tested nor registered as food additives nor medicinal products. Yes, hydrochloric acid is found in the human body, but I’d welcome clarification of what it is that you are saying? Please would you also cite your evidence for tests on sodium fluoride and confirm for which uses it is held to be safe?

Cardelia wrote: »

..Well, parts of china and india (a third of the world's population between them) have naturally high fluoride levels. As do parts of western africa and south america. So why would they need to add fluoride? Surely areas of high natural fluoridation should be discounted from calculations like this?...

Yes, some countries do have high levels of naturally occurring fluoride. And, no, I don’t think areas with natural fluoridation should be discounted from what I was saying : whichever base you start from artificial fluoridation of water supplies is a misguided minority affair across the world and the point is that nowhere “needs” to artificially add fluoride to the water. No-one is dying due to a lack of artificial fluoride in their water supply and there is absolutely no such thing as a fluoride deficiency in medical terms.

Cardelia wrote: »

...Anyway, this link gives the percentage of the population of some countries who receive artificially fluoridated water...

Ah yes, the BDJ and the BDA - I often turn to them when I want to read up on anything to do with pro-fluoride views.

Cardelia wrote: »

..The world population is about 6.8 billion. 5% of that is 340 million. If you do the calculation using the given percentages and current estimates of country population, it comes to almost 400 million. So around 6%....

I’ m impressed that you took the time to go over the pop. estimates but we still have a minority with artificial fluoride……….and then no comment from you about the countries who don’t want it, never had it, or have it but now want rid?

Quote (my words):
Water fluoridation has not been proved to be either safe or effective : however, topical application of fluoride may be helpful for those who have poor diets and inadequate dental care and is readily available.

Cardelia wrote: »

..The part in bold is, in part, a barefaced lie. There is a lot of data out there in peer-reviewed journals which proves the efficacy of fluoride. I linked to the York report earlier in the thread which reviewed all the available studies and it came to the conclusion that fluoride has a beneficial effect on human health. You're well aware of this - in fact, you even highlighted in bold (post #94) the report's conclusion that water fluoridation does have a beneficial effect. So please stop peddling the fallacy that the efficacy of water fluoridation has not been proven..

Cardelia - we’ve already done this one: you not only got the types of study wrong in your first post on the reviews, you then went on to misquote what was said by the York Review team, and now it appears that you’ve taken it out of context & distorted it again. Presumably, you use the term “a bare faced lie” because you disagree with what I wrote: as a graduate you will have learnt that it’s preferable to say that you disagree, and then demonstrate why. However, you follow up your rudeness by once more mis-quoting a major review to present your own opinion as a fact : I think it’s worth mentioning yet again that Professor Sheldon has taken people to task for misrepresenting what the York Review’s findings were (including “professional” bodies who should know better) . Let’s reiterate : there certainly is a lot of evidence (nb: data = raw) out there and the York review apparently found much of it to be of poor quality.

“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.”

And Professor Sheldon apparently correcting other misquotes:

“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."

As an analogy (on a pretty basic level admittedly) if I wash my car with something that potentially makes the body of it gleam and become impervious to rust but this same stuff damages the tyres, or other parts, then I’ d be struggling to view that substance as either safe or efficient.

Many people clearly view it as no fallacy to say that water fluoridation is neither safe nor efficient.

However, topical application of fluoride, as an individual option, can be effective for those who eat rubbish and who, for whatever reason, have poor dental hygiene: it can be targeted and does not inflict unwarranted treatment on those members of the population who do not need nor want artificial fluoride, especially not in their drinking water.

Evil_Dan

Time to return i think... =D

Right.

Something that the Pro-fluoro people have missed, as you all stated how there were high levels in fish, in Tea (I believe someone stated how the level of fluoride provided in Tea, made the level in water negligble)...

So why does it need to be added to the water, if there happens to be fluoride in other substances...?

If fluoride is SO safe for the body, why do fluoridated toothpastes carry a warning telling you to seek medical help if you swallow any of the toothpaste?

and a lovely thing for you.

When fluoride is transported, and if it's container becomes damaged, a huge area has to be evacuated, the road resurfaced, as it damages the road surface (just think what it could do to your insides that... mm, melty), it cannot be allowed to be washed into any water supply, and any water that is used to clean it up must be collected, and not be washed away.

Now, the fact the the US security services believed that Fluoride in transit could be a target is rather interesting. It's obvious that the containers would be targeted, due to the amount of damage a leak could cause.