Fluoride in tap water

Toothsmith

Evil_Dan wrote: »

I take it that you assume that everybody has no experiance with any scientific papers, that has replied on here...?

No - just the ones who seem to think that it's possible to prove something to be 'safe'.

Can you think of anything in any sphere of life that has been proved to be safe? I can't.

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

When I come across people who find interpreting the science a bit 'challenging' I find it best to repeat a simple message!

Do you know, I think I agree with you TS - so here’s a simple message once again:

• people need to stop consuming so much sugar, clean their teeth & see a dentist a couple of times a year
• fluoride is available topically for those who want it
• water fluoridation is wrong

Toothsmith wrote: »

Not interpreting scientific data, which is pretty easy to misrepresent to a public untrained in the language of scientific papers.

You’re so right about scientific data being misrepresented - I’ve noticed that the pro-lobby do that an awful lot: leaflets from the the “independent” Fluoride Info Centre, stuff from the BDA, the BFS et al, and that's before we cross to the US ?

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

No - just the ones who seem to think that it's possible to prove something to be 'safe'.

Can you think of anything in any sphere of life that has been proved to be safe? I can't.

:shocked: How odd, because in post no.39 in this very thread:

Toothsmith wrote: »

........The mass medication debate is a valid one, but the safety and effectiveness has been proved worldwide beyond doubt.

Whoops!

Now you are using the word safe within inverted commas - so really, in the context of water fluoridation being pronounced "safe and effective ", is it just a pretty meaningless comfort-word bunged in for the gullible masses?

Oh and post 111:

tbs624 wrote: »

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.

Normally we can all balance out our concerns about safety in all sorts of things by having a measure of choice - but unfortunately everyone's drinking water being artificially fluoridated removes that choice.

Grandmama

I live on the Isle of Man and we are now in the process of debating this very issue. To fluoridate or not.
My worry is if we fluoridate the water where will this all end.
Right, we've now sorted out the teeth.
Next, too many babies being conceived so lets add something to the water to stop that (bromide or hormones)
Next, too many fat people, lets find something to put in the water to stop that.
Next, people are getting too agggressive. Lets put sedatives in the water to stop that.
Next, Next ad infinitum.

walmslei

The OPs original question was:

"Will an ordinary water filter get rid of it or do you need something else."

Amazing that this debate has continued this long when that answer is quite simply no - Reverse Osmosis or an Activated Alumina Carbon based filter are about your only options. A filter jug is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard when dealing with fluoride!

RO systems (well all plumbed in filters) by the way are not a big job to fit - all companies provide self cutting valves which basically anyone with a bit of DIY nouse can fit. Our opinion is you can pay a lot for someone to come around your house, show you an RO, probably do the old jam jar demonstration (google that) and then sell you an RO for £500 to £1000 which technically is no superior to an RO system costing £150 to £200. Most companies in our market use TFC membranes and providing you replace the pre-filters when instructed the membranes last well. Chlorine and Chloramine rot membranes, so continued use with poorly maintained pre-filters will certainly be the quickest way to ruin a membrane.

Toothsmith - whilst I definitely believe you've given a great debate through all this, and debate on any subject is healthy I think the underlying issue is more about choice than fluoridation itself. People in this country are just fed up with being told what they do and how they will live their lives. No matter what evidence either party (pro or anti) produces I don't think you'll ever get over the obstacle that it is in peoples nature to want to make informed choices for themselves.

You've clearly made a choice and people need to respect that, but at the same time there has to be respect for people that have made the other choice. Telling people they should not object because it is safe simply doesn't win an argument because even if that is true (which isn't my point on this thread) people still have the right to not do it (much in the same way you have the right to refuse medical treatment, and the right to not take medication prescribed by a GP!).

Toothsmith

walmslei wrote: »

Toothsmith - whilst I definitely believe you've given a great debate through all this, and debate on any subject is healthy I think the underlying issue is more about choice than fluoridation itself. People in this country are just fed up with being told what they do and how they will live their lives. No matter what evidence either party (pro or anti) produces I don't think you'll ever get over the obstacle that it is in peoples nature to want to make informed choices for themselves.

You've clearly made a choice and people need to respect that, but at the same time there has to be respect for people that have made the other choice. Telling people they should not object because it is safe simply doesn't win an argument because even if that is true (which isn't my point on this thread) people still have the right to not do it (much in the same way you have the right to refuse medical treatment, and the right to not take medication prescribed by a GP!).

I'm not particularly 'pro' fluoride in the water walmslei.

The 'mass medication' debate is a perfectly good one.

What I object to is people trying to put about that fluoride, at 1ppm in the water supply is harming anything. It isn't.

It is not scientifically 'safe' - as nothing can be proved to be safe. But it is 'safe' from any popular acceptance of the word.

The balance of evidence is that it's harmless. It is 'safe' beyond reasonable doubt.

tbs624

Grandmama wrote: »

.......Next, people are getting too agggressive. Lets put sedatives in the water to stop that. Next, Next ad infinitum.

[FONT=&quot]Could even include “people are getting too vociferous about the artificial fluoride in the water, let’s put something in to stop that………..” [/FONT]

tbs624

Walmslei - thanks for your post: you and Mech have given some really helpful info on RO systems. It’s still an unnecessary expense for anyone to be put to though, just because other folk can’t be bothered to keep their kid’s teeth clean & keep them off their sugar fix.

As I said, if you own your own home you can do it if you have the spare cash, but if you’re renting what do you do? A LL is unlikely to allow a tenant on a short term let to drill into the sink or cut in to piping,however straightforward the fittings are, and if s/he did, as a tenant you’d not want to leave behind a couple of hundred quid’s worth of RO when you move on to your next home, Then there’s the cost of replacing undersink pipes and a new sink for the LL to ensure safe return of your deposit? You’re also still exposed to all the other artificially fluoridated water elsewhere in the community.

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

It is not scientifically 'safe' - as nothing can be proved to be safe. But it is 'safe' from any popular acceptance of the word.

The balance of evidence is that it's harmless. It is 'safe' beyond reasonable doubt.

….so, very definitely, the word “safe” is a pretty meaningless comfort-word bunged in for the gullible masses. Earlier in the thread some were putting forward the view that it was medically safe beyond doubt, then it was that nothing can be shown to be safe, now you’re saying its “safe” in common parlance. Not sure if you mean Joe/Joanna Bloggs doesn’t need to worry his/her little head about it , ie. doc/dentist knows best? The days of paternalistic health provision are obsolete - as Walmslei rightly says, people are tired of being told what to do.

Water fluoridation is just wrong on so many levels:

Topical fluoride is available for those who want it, and is readily available

It is mass medication against people’s wishes: it removes the right of individuals to opt out of treatment, either at the start of or during the course of medication.

It fails to take into account the individual doses of fluoride that we all get from everywhere else, and the differences in fluid intake.

It does not take into account the specific health conditions of the each individual (There are people with far more serious conditions than tooth decay whose health is likely to suffer)

It is not proven to be effective over and above any other method of fluoride delivery

Fluoride promotion is backed by commercial concerns, and there is insufficient openness about this.

There are enough phosphate industry-related health concerns already.

The wider environmental issues ( effects on rivers, chemical transport etc) have not been given sufficient attention.

The kids with rotten teeth don’t drink water as their fluid of choice or parental recommendation so we could alternatively just add artificial fluoride to the BDA-endorsed blackcurrant drink or the nation’s favourite brown fizzy stuff, or to any kind of sugar/sugar product and it would probably hit the target whilst giving the rest of us some choice.)

Mass medication against people’s wishes cannot be justified to remedy a preventable condition in a minority of the population, which is caused quite simply by a lack of parental responsibility, too much sugary food and drink, and poor funding for targeted NHS dentistry provision

One of the most important factors in dental caries is the frequent consumption of sugar products, but no-one wants to recommend self-control, nor to upset the mighty sugar corporations, who also have a vested interest in promoting the use of fluoride (they altruistically provide an educational grant for the production of a freely distributed “Dental Digest” and their education resources for parents & teachers are pro-fluoride)

The other important factor is a lack of dental hygiene: now, at a time when parents are being made to face up to their responsibilities by, eg. being fined for their kids misdemeanours, taken to court for their kids lack of school attendance etc, why should it be seen as acceptable that the rest of us have to swallow artificial fluoride because some parents feed their kids junk and won’t supervise the cleaning of their teeth? If health inequalities are a big political issue, then the politicians need to be watching their seats because this scenario looks pretty inequitable to many of us (certainly affected how I voted locally yesterday).

There are already plenty of hints on these boards about how to eat well but cheaply: how about someone starting a thread on the cheapest source of toothpaste and toothbrushes, or the cheapest & most effective inducement that can be offered to these parents to get their kids along to the dentist?

Here’s a start…one of the big three supermarkets has a pack of 2 toothbrushes at 14p and a tube of fluoride toothpaste at 29p. Now that's cheaper than the stuff that causes the rot in the first place. Maybe the sugar manufacturers could provide them free to those in need?

Toothsmith

I must be softening, there wasn't that much there that I have issues with. It was reasonably accurate!

But....

tbs624 wrote: »

as Walmslei rightly says, people are tired of being told what to do.

True enough, so why.....

tbs624 wrote: »

The other important factor is a lack of dental hygiene: now, at a time when parents are being made to face up to their responsibilities by, eg. being fined for their kids misdemeanours, taken to court for their kids lack of school attendance etc, why should it be seen as acceptable that the rest of us have to swallow artificial fluoride because some parents feed their kids junk and won’t supervise the cleaning of their teeth? [/font]

..... are parents going to listen when they're told, on top of everything else they're being told, to look after their kids teeth any better?

tbs624 wrote: »

There are already plenty of hints on these boards about how to eat well but cheaply: how about someone starting a thread on the cheapest source of toothpaste and toothbrushes, or the cheapest & most effective inducement that can be offered to these parents to get their kids along to the dentist?

There is a big difference between the fluoride release of cheap and dearer toothpastes. Getting a good brand cheaply is OK, but I would avoid cheap toothpastes. Similarly with brushes. A cheap brush can actually be quite damaging to the gums.

tbs624 wrote: »

Here’s a start…one of the big three supermarkets has a pack of 2 toothbrushes at 14p and a tube of fluoride toothpaste at 29p. Now that's cheaper than the stuff that causes the rot in the first place. Maybe the sugar manufacturers could provide them free to those in need?

I'd avoid that.