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
-
http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm
It's interesting when scientific people 'go native'.
This chap must know that the vast majority of what he's put his name to here is complete tosh.
But - opposing fluoride has made him far more famous than supporting it, gets him flown round the world, and put up in very expensive hotels, and there's now a much wider market for his books.
Kerching!
And what's that little button on the left of that web page??
Donate?
There is a lot of money to be made playing on peoples fear.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 -
It's interesting that you attack individuals and seek to denigrate their professionalism, rather than properly attempting to address the issues that they highlight. http://www.toronto.edu/dentistry/facultyresearch/facultyprofiles/limeback.htmlToothsmith wrote: »
You do love to make these brave generic statements without backing them up.Evidence please.Toothsmith wrote: »This chap must know that the vast majority of what he's put his name to here is complete tosh.
Again, any evidence for what you're saying TS, or is that just your personal thoughts on it as a provincial UK dentist?Toothsmith wrote: »But - opposing fluoride has made him far more famous than supporting it, gets him flown round the world, and put up in very expensive hotels, and there's now a much wider market for his books.
Isn't that the sound of the pro-f sector of the dentistry profession gathering money in from fluoride endorsement & those products they flog from their surgeries? You never did make any suggestions on the figures for how much the BDA may make from its links with the big pharma companiesand the f-promotions? You say you've been to a few BDA conferences - would that be one with "goody bags" provided? If it was, what did you get in yours?Toothsmith wrote: »Kerching!
TS - you know that those who would like their voice to be heard against water fluoridation are up against massive industry lobbying with their attendant funding and governments who can't meet their own targets on dental health, and want a quick cheap "fix" so will try to go with it.Toothsmith wrote: »And what's that little button on the left of that web page??
Donate?
In Southampton the local residents who do not want fluoride asked for grant funding equivalent to the amount received by the pro-flobby to put forward their side of the "discussion". They were refused. So yes - donate, or get trampled on.
Once again we're going back over old ground here - look out towards the food industries too. On related obesity issues, how long did it take for these companies to be persuaded to stop adding hydrogenated fats to so many of their products? Have a look at some food labels when you next stroll down the supermarket aisles - sugar and glucose/fructose syrup high up on the list? Switch on your telly for children's/family peak viewing times - check out just who is advertising on the "pester power" slot.
There certainly is - and that's why the pro-water fluoridation lobby keep trying to make out that if we don't go along with having this unwanted substance in our water supply we're all responsible for the minority of children who have decaying teeth.Toothsmith wrote: »There is a lot of money to be made playing on peoples fear.
We're not -but the government is - for failing to deal with the food producing companies, for failing to address poverty & education issues, for failing to make adequate NHS provision for dental services.
Individual parents are - for failing their own kids.
It's not rocket science - eat too much sugary carp and fail to clean your teeth or see a dentist regularly and your teeth will rot.
Why do we not see adverts that show a bag of sugar, a pile of sweets, cola and blackcurrant drinks - with a warning that these products can damage your health?
Money, profit, backroom lobbying - that's why. The sugar industry and the fluoride/pharma folk effectively scratch each others backs.The govt struggles to adequately fund the NHS and can't afford the threat of "shock redundancies in the food industry sector", so won't look at slapping a huge tax on sugary food & drink to be used to fund appropriate targeted dental treatment.
How many adverts for f-products are there in your surgery TS?0 -
There are no adverts at all in my surgery.
I try to make my practice not look like a dental practice.
I have paintings, and magazines.
I sell some toothbrushes that aren't generally available in big shops, and a range of OH products for the hygienist to recommend (Some of which have fluoride in them), but with the exception of some TePe brushes, none are on display.
No-one pays us to put up any product adverts anyway.
Some of the leaflets my OHI gives out were published by Wrigleys. The others by one of the nearby PCTs (which we bought because we weren't in that PCT area).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 -
I don't have time right now to respond to everything. However, the following is quick and easy:Barely started the article and they’re off. Silicofluorides do not appear naturally - using the terms “adjusting/topping up” is a deliberate ploy to misrepresent.Now here in the UK the Drinking Water Inspectorate calls disodium hexafluorosilicate and hexafluorosilicic acid “ chemicals”.That’ll be because fluorosilicic acid (used for water fluoridation) * is* artificial and a pollutant.
Read the reference I posted in post #276. When added to drinking water, H2SiF6 and Na2SiF6 both undergo complete dissociation into fluoride anions, the same fluoride anions which are found in naturally occurring tap water. If you cannot wrap your head around this simple (and scientifically proven) fact then I don't see how you can have the gall to criticise my "reading and understanding of scientific papers".
Assuming you have read (and understood) the paper I quoted, then I presume you'll stop using emotive and scaremongering language such as "pollutant", "artificial" and "do not appear naturally". Because, as you'll know from reading the paper, those terms are irrelevant because Na2SiF6 and H2SiF6 do not exist in drinking water.0 -
Nothing to do with gall, the evidence is there in the thread: you didn't understand the difference between data and evidence, or between a review and a study, and you misinterpreted & misquoted and yet seek to present yourself as some sort of scientific authority..... If you cannot wrap your head around this simple (and scientifically proven) fact then I don't see how you can have the gall to criticise my "reading and understanding of scientific papers".
Did you read the paper itself Cardelia or are you back to the usual "google a summary"?. Assuming you have read (and understood) the paper I quoted, then I presume you'll stop using emotive and scaremongering language such as "pollutant", "artificial" and "do not appear naturally". Because, as you'll know from reading the paper, those terms are irrelevant because Na2SiF6 and H2SiF6 do not exist in drinking water.
My post was making a specific response to the laughable quackwatch article, addressing some of their specific statements and the terms are relevant to the context.
As I said above
You didn't answer?As Cardelia is the “science graduate” who has, several times in this thread, demonstrated an inability to read & understand research papers, has misquoted and misinterpreted, does s/he think that those professionals such as chemistry professor Dr. Paul Connett (New York),medically-qualified toxico-pathologist Professor Vyvyan Howard (Ulster) , forensic ecologist Doug Cross, Head of Preventive Dentistry Dr Hardy Limeback (Toronto) , Emeritus Professor of Chemistry AW Burgstahler (Kansas) pharmacologist & toxicologist Dr Phyllis J Mullenix et al have all got it wrong on the risks of water fluoridation?
As you seem to be a supporter of adding unwanted and unnecessary artificial fluoride to *everyone's* drinking water you are clearly struggling with the fact that the evidence for its safety and effectiveness is not proven.
You've swallowed the pro-f lines so eagerly that you trot every one of their cliches out time and time again.Scaremongering? That's an easy label to attach to anyone who questions anything, isn't it? I could produce a long list of those who were labelled scaremongerers on any number of issues and subsequently proved right to have raised their concerns.
Would you include the York Review Panel as scaremongerers? They did say:
"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. The report recommended that more research was needed."
If you want fluoride please feel free to have some - I don't want it in my drinking water and neither do many other people.
Not wanting fluoride added to my drinking water does not deprive you or anyone else of the right to get their F-fix, because there are plenty of alternative methods of delivery (think I covered this one too in post 189)
You like science, so -- accept the facts on why children have dental decay and campaign for the government to act on sugar products and to provide proper targeted dental care rather than seeking to dose the whole population
- accept the science that apparently shows that topical application of fluoride can help those who can't/won't cut down on their sugar consumption nor maintain basic dental hygiene, with the added bonus that it does not infringe on the health rights of others.
0 -
Erm, what part of "I don't have time right now to respond to everything." is too difficult for you to comprehend?You didn't answer?
Oooh, that's a bold statement. I particularly like it when you apply it to the following:As Cardelia is the “science graduate” who has, several times in this thread, demonstrated an inability to read & understand research papers, has misquoted and misinterpreted...
The above paper proves that silicofluorides completely hydrolyse in water to fluoride. Which you would know if you'd read and understood the paper. Or perhaps you did and you're still deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to scare people into rejecting fluoride? But of course, you'd never stoop so low as to misrepresent what is present in our drinking water in order to scare people into rejecting fluoride? Would you?Silicofluorides do not appear naturally - using the terms “adjusting/topping up” is a deliberate ploy to misrepresent.
Now, I wonder who said that? I hope they read that paper I linked to so we won't see any more of that sort of rubbish.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.
Anyway, now the personal stuff's out of the way, we'll go back to the York report. I refer you to my post #108, which you never got round to responding to. Here's what I said:
This is consistent with points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 made by Prof. Sheldon. It is inconsistent with point 2. I have no idea what Prof. Sheldon is trying to achieve with point 2. However, the conclusions he draws there are inconsistent with the conclusions drawn by the York report, namely that the fluorosis question could NOT be answered by the York report because of a lack of studies of sufficient quality. Level 'C' studies were rejected by the panel as being of insufficient quality to draw strong conclusions, yet there was only one non-C study which dealt with the fluorosis question. So how can you draw strong conclusions on the basis of one study?Cardelia wrote: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.
What's the old saying? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're drawing a false conclusion from the lack of high-quality studies. Besides, there are areas of the UK which have had naturally high levels of fluoride in tap water for generations. Are there any studies which show a higher rate of mortality due to fluoride in those areas than in low fluoride areas of the UK? Surely, if fluoride is the horrendous poison you're painting it as, there would be hundreds of these studies all documenting the myriad illnesses and diseases caused by fluoride. So, where are they all? Or can I claim that fluoride is safe on the basis of this lack of studies...?tbs624 wrote:That’s only, what, 60+ years on from the original US experimentations……and they still can’t definitively show that water fluoridation is “safe and effective”? There is a reason for that - it quite simply isn’t and those who believe otherwise, and/or seek to discount the vested interests behind the fluoridation question, are the gullible ones
No. But then they don't use terms like "pollutant", "artificial" and "do not appear naturally" in an attempt to misrepresent what is actually present in our water supply. Or what about "not benign and natural" or "not tested and passed safe for human consumption" when they're referring to compounds which do not exist in drinking water? That's scaremongering.Would you include the York Review Panel as scaremongerers?
Oh, and about those doctors? It's nice of you to name some medical professionals (and their qualifications no less) who are against fluoridation, but really, what's the point? Are you so desperate to be seen as having some scientific credibility that you're trawling Google for academics and medics who support your point of view?0 -
I think I've aid a few times in this thread, I have no strong views either way on putting fluoride in the water at 1ppm.
If you argue the 'mass medication' ticket, I'd have a lot fewer issues with you.
But the anti F lobby completely misrepresent the science (as has been shown on here by others) misquote and misinterpret the data, and just blatently lie.
The York review may not have said that fluoridation was 'safe' - because scientifically speaking it can't - and never could.
Neither did it say that those handful of quacks were right, or that the fluoride put in drinking water was a 'poison' or a 'waste product'.
It found no evidence for anything other than a bit of low-grade mottling.
There were no level 'a' studies anywhere - either for or against. Most of the evidence for was made up of level 'b' studies, and level 'c' studies were all ignored.
For the case against - all they could find was level 'c' studies!!!!! Where is all the work done by those scientists you name who are so opposed to fluoride? They haven't done anything worth inclusion!
The York review destroyed much more of your argument than it supported.
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/summary.pdf
Here's the link to the sumary.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 -
Barely started the article and they’re off. Silicofluorides do not appear naturally - using the terms “adjusting/topping up” is a deliberate ploy to misrepresent.
While you're correct that silicofluorides do not appear naturally, they're not at all mistaken in context as silicofluorides do not appear in your tap water when silicofluorides are added to it either.
As I attempted to explain earlier, and was discussed in much greater detail over the past couple of pages, the silicofluorides disassociate in water. Simply put, they break down in to single atoms, in this case fluorine and silicon, and both of these do naturally occur in tap water.
So, I do think their claim to be adjusting the proportions of naturally occuring elements in the tap water is scientifically solid as these ions are found naturally in water in many areas and in the exact same form. There is no difference, no nasty twist here or left out information, they are 100% identical. If you were to extract samples of fluorine and silicon from where it naturally occurs and where it has been added and send them to be analysed they could not tell you which was which.
It is simply not possible to tell the difference between identical atoms. All atoms of the same element are identical, and I mean identical in the strictest sense possible. If you could measure their mass, their diameter and any other characteristic you can name to a billion decimal places, the number would be the exact same for every atom of the same element. A fluorine atom from any source is the same as any other.0 -
Check back your own Post, no.35:Toothsmith wrote: »I think I've aid a few times in this thread, I have no strong views either way on putting fluoride in the water at 1ppm.
I’d say that ‘s a pretty good indicator of which way you lean (unless it's just that you like playing Devil's advocateToothsmith wrote: »..- Does fluoride, at a level of 1ppm have a beneficial effect on a population's dental health?
- Does fluoride at a level of 1ppm cause any adverse effects on that population.
- Is the addition of fluoride at a level of 1ppm a cost effective public health measure?
) Your assertions in reply to your own questions there are of course less than truthful.
As we don’t know one another personally, I’ll take it that you mean that you have issues with my views.Toothsmith wrote: »If you argue the 'mass medication' ticket, I'd have a lot fewer issues with you.
However, check back TS and you'll see that I did highlight the mass medication issue in Post 49:
and in Post 94:If a doctor prescribed a medicine for someone without knowing their medical history, or what other medicine they might be taking, without giving a precise dosage and without the patient’s consent s/he’d be accused of negligence, but this is what fluoridating the water supplies will effectively be doing. And normally of course, consent can be freely withdrawn at any time – but that won’t help with fluoride because you won’t be able to either give your personal consent, nor be free to withdraw it.....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......
...in Posts 111, and 115:
and in Posts 180, 189, and 210:However, the fact you aren't worried doesn't give the right to over-ride the wishes of those who are: there are other methods of fluoride delivery, topical application works ( according to the studies), with the bonus that it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to not be medicated through something quite so basic a need as the provision of drinking water...
So I think we've established the mass medication criteria, but what was your blithe comment to MeekGeek when s/he expressly asked...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
"Why should I be medicated against my wishes? "
For the greater good?
I think we can safely say that the pro-F lobby are themselves particularly skilled at that, and they also have considerable finances at their disposal,which enables their misinformation to be more widely distributed.Toothsmith wrote: »But the anti F lobby completely misrepresent the science (as has been shown on here by others) misquote and misinterpret the data, and just blatently lie.
And yet, further back in the thread you personally have stated categorically in a number of posts that water fluoridation is “safe and effective” (Post 39 et al)Toothsmith wrote: »The York review may not have said that fluoridation was 'safe' - because scientifically speaking it can't - and never could.
Let’s remind ourselves of the pro- F quackwatch “experts” - fluoride as a n-u-t-r-i-e-n-t? However, it wasn’t within the remit of the Review to comment on any of those matters: you’d surely know this if you had read the full report?Neither did it say that those handful of quacks were right, or that the fluoride put in drinking water was a 'poison' or a 'waste product'.
<sigh> TS, you have just posted that the opponents of water fluoridation misquote and misinterpret ( the exact phrase I used regarding some of Cardelia’s posts, interestingly) and now here you are offering another gross misrepresentation of the York Review’s statement of 48% with fluorosis, 1 in 8 of those with it to the extent that it’s “aesthetically concerning” at a 1ppm dosage. You also still fail to acknowledge that fluorosis is a symptom of toxicity within the body, just as a Burton’s line was evidence of the damage done by lead.It found no evidence for anything other than a bit of low-grade mottling.Toothsmith wrote: »There were no level 'a' studies anywhere - either for or against. Most of the evidence for was made up of level 'b' studies, and level 'c' studies were all ignored.
For the case against - all they could find was level 'c' studies!!!!! Where is all the work done by those scientists you name who are so opposed to fluoride? They haven't done anything worth inclusion! The York review destroyed much more of your argument than it supported. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/summary.pdf
Here's the link to the summary
It’s kind of you to post that up but it's worthwhile reading the full report, rather than just the summary - see my previous posts mentioning the Review, including:
On the topic of fluorosis that you seem able to be so dismissive of - other readers of the thread may be interested to look at this:The Review presented a summary of the findings of the studies available at the time, that fitted their criteria, but let’s mention here that AFAIAA none of the 214 studies included in the Review (out of 3,231) reached the highest quality grade of research, all animal and toxicological studies were excluded, and the issue of total fluoride intake from all sources was ignored. A less than overwhelming set of figures for the perceived benefit of any substance, especially in isolation of regard for that substance’s full capacity for harm, can hardly be held up as an unequivocal proving of efficacy.
A simple technique for removal of mottling, opacities and pigmentation from enamel.Welbury RR, Shaw L.(Department of Child Dental Health, The Dental School, Newcastle upon Tyne)
Mottling of teeth can have significant psychological impact on patients--particularly on adolescents, who may be subjected to much unkind teasing. A number of procedures have been suggested for removal of mottling and stains. The authors describe a simple and quick technique using a paste of hydrochloric acid and pumice, and on the basis of their clinical and laboratory experience suggest it as a treatment of first choice.PMID: 2103539 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
We’ve already had Cardelia in a previous post tell us, in case we don’t know, that hydrochloric acid is present in the human body (ergo, it’s natural), but do any of us want our kids to be that possible one in eight, distressed by the appearance of their teeth and facing treatment with a paste of pumice and hydrochloric acid? If that delightful combo doesn’t do the trick, a lifetime of dental veneers awaits, with the attendant costs. (Let’s also mention again what the fluorosis is evidence of - toxicity in the body.)
That seems unbelievably wrong if you’re one of those families who take care of their kid’s dental health in other ways, yet end up facing this scenario because water fluoridation for the whole population was seen as the way to sort out tooth decay in a minority of other families who can’t/won’t keep their own kids off the sugar and make sure that they clean their teeth?
Did someone mention health inequalities? That looks like one to me.0 -
sounds good so far....Toothsmith wrote: »There are no adverts at all in my surgery.
I try to make my practice not look like a dental practice.
I have paintings, and magazines.
It does tend to be via the not so subtle product placement & "free" leaflets in many surgeries, but you have mentioned that yours is a private practice spo maybe there is less pressureToothsmith wrote: »I sell some toothbrushes that aren't generally available in big shops, and a range of OH products for the hygienist to recommend (Some of which have fluoride in them), but with the exception of some TePe brushes, none are on display.
No-one pays us to put up any product adverts anyway.
Wrigleys, as in Wrigleys bought out by Mars earlier this year? Mars, as in manufacturers of M&Ms, Snickers, Milky Way.......and other sugar products? ...Toothsmith wrote: »Some of the leaflets my OHI gives out were published by Wrigleys. The others by one of the nearby PCTs (which we bought because we weren't in that PCT area).
Isn't that a bit like the producers of,say, Carling Black Label & Jack Daniels producing leaflets on how to deal with cirrhosis?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