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
-
Am I right here? That article says ONE MEP called for an investigation in front of 40 people in a pub.0 -
The purpose of my post was that the site tried to present fluoride as a banned or restricted substance, which it clearly is not as it's still available in many products, and these uses have not been questioned. On these grounds I don't believe these countries consider fluoride dangerous, as implied, and that the site's claims are exaggerated and misleading.
Also, fluoride has nothing to do with sugar consumption, lifestyle or diet. It is effective at reducing tooth decay regardless of all these factors. The suggestion that the tap water is being 'mass medicated' to stop dental decay in families who eat rubbish and drink nothing but fizzy drinks is a negative image created for the sake of a negative image, and I feel plays more on social stereotypes than real logic.
As for 'different types of fluoride', this claim has been repeatedly questioned in previous posts, which counter claim that fluoride dissociates in to ions and they're all the same regardless of the compound used. As I have stated before, artificial fluoride is no different to fluoride that naturally occurs. In fact, all the resulting ions are identical to those naturally present. These posts are extensive, and certainly not easily missed. However, so far none of the anti-fluoride contributors have made any attempt to respond to these claims, and still continue to repeat that there are different types of fluoride.
I feel that when a claim is questioned and criticised this significantly, people who continue using it should attempt to answer the criticisms in some form. They clearly have a reason for not believing them, so why not share the reasoning? The lack of any direct response has led me, although perhaps unfairly to wonder if they haven't even investigated the claims, or that they didn't understand the science behind them.
Look at your response in post 244. You clearly did not read any of the late Dr John Lee articles that prove some of your points here. Just weasel words.
You also mislead people and write about fluoride bans when these articles are talking about bans on fluoridation of the water supply.0 -
This is a large diversion from the topic so I'm reluctant to delve in to the issues here too much. It originally came up in discussion because one of the sites talking extensively about fluoride was a commercial alternative health site, and when considering sources I do take the format they're in in to account, which is why I mentioned my dislike of alternative health products.
It was relevant in a connected way, but this site is as far as I can tell entirely unrelated to either issue.
It's just a collection of carefully picked nasty data on medical treatments. You could easily cherry pick some nasty data on air plane accidents and scare people with that, despite air travel being the safest way to travel. Safer even than walking. There is simply no balance here, the millions of people who take medicines that work well for them and which improve their health have been left out because these stats don't create the picture they want you to see.
I think you should read a few of the articles on here. It may change your mind. No harm in changing your mind.
http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/prescriptiondrugwatch.html
http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/hopkinshealth.html
The imbalance is leaving out all the elements of that phenomenon called truth.0 -
:rolleyes:geordie_joe wrote: »How can putting fluoride into tooth paste be effective for those who can't be bothered to clean their teeth?
The studies apparently say that topical application of sodium fluoride is effective - it comes in forms additional to toothpaste.0 -
Apparently Finland has the best water quality (and, guess what, they don’t add fluoride) Comparatively to some other countries, yes, we have a good water supply but reported/investigated incidents over the past couple of years have included the following in our water supplies:Here in the UK we drink some of the cleanest tap water in the world, and it brings with it huge benefits to human health. There are extensive restrictions and quality controls regarding tap water and the materials used to pipe it to our houses, and they have been getting tighter.
I realise there are issues with water quality around the world, very serious issues, but not here in the UK or most of Europe.
E coli, cryptosporidium, excess phosphate, elevated bromate content , elevated iron concentration, elevated aluminium concentration, bentonite clay in mains water overdose of chlorine contamination by hydrocarbons from petrol leak , unspecified microbiological contamination, loss of disinfection, high levels of iron, supply of what the DWI classifies as unwholesome water, pesticides present in treated water, petrol odour/taste caused by mains cross connection, diesel contamination, salt water intrusion, chironomid larvae., stagnant water drawn into main supply etc.
Now, amongst the investigation results were things such as IT system failure, inadequate/deficient communication, insufficient worker training, inadequate procedural guidance given to staff, lack of information dissemination, incorrect specifications, failure to take samples, analytical failure, inadequate guidance to consumers, routine tests not done, lack of action on abnormal test results, failure to address alarm notifications, failure to meet reporting requirements,lack of testing/manual checks, poor response to alarms, inadequate investigation/sampling, insufficient supervision/monitoring of contractors, lack of appropriate equipment maintenance, inadequate contingency planning/risk assessment, operational failings and incorrect assumptions, failure to notify DWI in a timely fashion, equipment/process failure, lack of awareness, inadequate operational procedures, use of substandard hypochlorite solution caused dosing valves to become blocked with crystalline deposits, training & competency issues, full sample results not reported, lack of consistent maintenance, triggers for water quality investigation inadequate, failure to follow own company procedures or regulatory guidance, inappropriate response, failure to instigate enhanced monitoring after alerts, failure to risk assess for algal blooms, lack of understanding of reservoir supply configuration, lack of robust monitoring system, inadequate dosing process due to equipment failure, inappropriate setting of alarms, critical alarm not routed to a central control, inaccurate company records - lacking accurate info & detail, water quality issues not escalated appropriately - delays in response & failure to notify or unacceptable delay in notifying DWI and local/health authorities , company didn’t ensure contractors followed basic hygiene practices, inadequate labelling of valves resulted in incorrect valve being operated in error, inadequate flushing of repaired main, manual errors when automated system was awaiting repair , lack of secure storage of full and empty chemical drums, lack of appropriate valve labeling, lack of procedure for processing/disposing of drums of chemicals, poor system for recording purpose/dates of staff visits to unmanned sites, wrong service pipe connected, unreliable analysis.
Doesn’t really reassure people that we can rely on the water companies to get the fluorosilicic acid into the water supply always at the “recommended” dose, does it, or store the stuff nor account for its use properly? How long did it take to get anywhere near the truth with the Camelford water supply, when a temporary driver dumped 20 tons of aluminium sulphate into the wrong tank and a concentrated quantity was delivered to the local people?
Remember that indemnity that the Government have had to promise the water companies for all costs relating to water fluoridation?0 -
Other countries who have never had water fluoridation, or who have had it and have since discontinued the practice, have offered various reasons for their decisions: these have included ethical grounds, medical grounds, unproven safety/benefit grounds, ecological grounds etc. It’s kind of immaterial whether you personally don’t believe that these countries consider it dangerous. What is for sure is that if water fluoridation was the wonder solution that some deem it to be then everyone everywhere would be clamouring for it and they are not, moreover, many that have had water fluoridation in the past have abandoned it or are shortly to do so.The purpose of my post was that the site tried to present fluoride as a banned or restricted substance, which it clearly is not as it's still available in many products, and these uses have not been questioned. On these grounds I don't believe these countries consider fluoride dangerous, as implied, and that the site's claims are exaggerated and misleading.
I think maybe you misunderstand the point Ben - why is the tooth decay there in the first place? The issues around water fluoridation have everything to do with those things - tooth decay is caused by sugar consumption, frequent snacking on sugary poor quality food and acidic/sugary drink products, which react with the bacteria in plaque and a failure to follow very simple dental hygiene measures, which would help keep the plaque itself at bay. Limiting the amount of sugary rubbish you eat, the frequency with which you eat it, & using a toothbrush and toothpaste is effective at reducing tooth decay. You can even waggle a bit of floss or a TePe or, if you must, get a dentist to paint a fissure sealant onto kids’ teeth as a preventive measure. That is all bog standard dentists’ advice. Even Alan Johnson, the Govt pusher of water fluoridation has said “tooth decay is preventable through diet and through regular effective tooth brushing”.Also, fluoride has nothing to do with sugar consumption, lifestyle or diet. It is effective at reducing tooth decay regardless of all these factors.
If you want extra fluoride, or your dental practitioner thinks you ought to have it, then you can have it in milk, salt or in drops: the rest of the population shouldn’t have to have it as well. It’s available for you now, but I don’t have to join in and neither do others who don’t want to ingest the stuff. It may even be important to some “refuseniks” because of their own health issues but that seems to get discounted in the treatment of the tooth decay of a minority ( & that tooth decay is not only preventable in the first place, but treatable by measures other than artificial fluoridation of the public’s water supplies)
Let’s look at the presentations used to justify water fluoridation, and you’ll see the origins of that image: we’re told that its because some children in some areas have tooth decay - the argument is that it costs too much and is inefficient to try to use topical application of fluoride because of poor/inappropriate diet & a lack of education/compliance by the parents. The cheaper the food, the more highly processed it is likely to be and the more sugar and fat it is likely to contain. You will get kids with decaying teeth from different socio-economic groups, but for different reasons. The fact remains that, for all of them, if they didn’t consume so much sugary food & drink, and if they did have an appropriate dental hygiene routine, the decay rates would be minimal:there's logical for you.The suggestion that the tap water is being 'mass medicated' to stop dental decay in families who eat rubbish and drink nothing but fizzy drinks is a negative image created for the sake of a negative image, and I feel plays more on social stereotypes than real logic.
What would be added to the water supply is categorically not some pharma grade product and the fact that there is not a certain standard level of fluoride occurring naturally does not mean that something that is lacking in the water. As I said before, there is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency.As for 'different types of fluoride', this claim has been repeatedly questioned in previous posts, which counter claim that fluoride dissociates in to ions and they're all the same regardless of the compound used. As I have stated before, artificial fluoride is no different to fluoride that naturally occurs. In fact, all the resulting ions are identical to those naturally present. These posts are extensive, and certainly not easily missed. However, so far none of the anti-fluoride contributors have made any attempt to respond to these claims, and still continue to repeat that there are different types of fluoride.
Have you fully researched the history behind the water fluoridation programmes? Have you personally read any of the published papers against water fluoridation? (and I don’t mean “google a summary” as another pro-f poster on here likes to do)I feel that when a claim is questioned and criticised this significantly, people who continue using it should attempt to answer the criticisms in some form. They clearly have a reason for not believing them, so why not share the reasoning? The lack of any direct response has led me, although perhaps unfairly to wonder if they haven't even investigated the claims, or that they didn't understand the science behind them.
Have you also read, for example, Bryson’s The Fluoride Deception, or any of the articles by people like ecologist Doug Cross, Dr Hardy Limeback , Dr PJ Mullenix, or Nobel Prize scientist Dr Arvid Carlsson? Have you done any reading on the problems faced by renal patients or those with thyroid problems or other pre-existing health issues? Have you addressed the fact that with water fluoridation at 1ppm 1 in 8 children would have fluorosis that would be aesthetically concerning, leaving them facing peer ridicule & unpleasant forms of dental treatment? (How ironic if, as I said before, that child is one whose parents have kept an eye on their diet, have made sure that they clean their teeth & get to the dentist)
Have you addressed the issues around the failure to consider the intake of fluoride for each individual from all other sources? Have you addressed the WHO figures using DMFT indices that show that dental decay is down across western industrialised countries regardless of whether or not their water supply has been artificially fluoridated? ( & this is not countries with a naturally high level of fluoride) Can you point to one substantial review that shows water fluoridation to be both “safe and effective”? (there are, as mentioned above, plenty of studies showing that topical application is the most effective form of treatment) Have you dealt with the fact that fluorosis is not simply some kind of pattern on the teeth, rather it is evidence of systemic toxicity? Have you addressed the moral issues around people who can’t afford reverse osmosis filters or who will be unable to have them fitted because they lived in rented accommodation? Have you addressed any of the moral or ethical issues over mass medication or the unsavoury idea that a govt can decide to add "medication" addressed to the few but delivered to the whole population? Have you addressed the fact that the "precautionary principle" is being totally ignored? Have you addressed the links between pharma companies, the fertiliser companies, the vested interests of the sugar & confectionery producers & sponsorship within the dentistry profession?
If you haven’t then what you seem to be suggesting is that if people have a view that differs from your own then they surely haven’t investigated the claims that you would like them to address, whilst seeing it as acceptable for you to be choosing which bits of the arguments against water fluoridation you yourself will respond to.0 -
Look at your response in post 244. You clearly did not read any of the late Dr John Lee articles that prove some of your points here. Just weasel words.
You also mislead people and write about fluoride bans when these articles are talking about bans on fluoridation of the water supply.
Some of these sites are quite ambiguous, so I'm concerned the difference here is being blurred. Others however are just incorrect. One you posted a link to, which I mention in post 270 said:
This statement is not true and never has been.The EU has banned artificial fluoridation because of the risks to general health.
I don't believe that bringing these errors to people's attention is misleading them.
As for the articles you asked me to look at. I did look at them. However, I don't believe they're good sources and explained that at the time. They're not properly referenced, in fact some have no references at all. Where did the data come from? Do we agree with the interpretation of this data? Is the data still current, or has it gone out of date or been proven incorrect since? In fact, when there is no reference we even have to ask if there was any original data.
I can't prove a word of it without sources and references for the data, so I have to discard it.0 -
If you haven’t then what you seem to be suggesting is that if people have a view that differs from your own then they surely haven’t investigated the claims that you would like them to address, whilst seeing it as acceptable for you to be choosing which bits of the arguments against water fluoridation you yourself will respond to.
It was actually you and several others who first suggested that there are different types of fluoride. It's not my claim that I'm asking you to consider. It's your own claim that you have received extensive responses on, around 2-3 pages so far. Responses that have been and continue to be ignored while you repeat the same claim again and again.
I feel it's quite reasonable, if not to be expected that someone says we've been here, we've heard this before, talked about it and moved on, why bring it up again without anything new to add to it. It's not like we missed it or didn't grasp the concept, we talked about it in detail and even covered the structure of the molecules.0 -
Some of these sites are quite ambiguous, so I'm concerned the difference here is being blurred. Others however are just incorrect. One you posted a link to, which I mention in post 270 said:
This statement is not true and never has been.
Do you agree then, that there is no fluoridation of the water supply going on in those countries listed.0 -
Right Hampshire are now going to have fluoride added to their drinking water. And according to the news other water companies are likely to follow suit very rapidly.
If this extends to my area I WILL be going down the bottled water route (something I normally refuse to buy because of the impact of the plastic on the environment.)
Looking around the water delivery websites for the UK they all insist you have these fancy electric cooler things.
Now when I lived overseas we had to have drinking water delivered and it was fairly cheap and involved no cooler we had a very large plastic container sort of like this
http://www.vtarmynavy.com/reliance-aqua-pak.htm
except with a handle and screw opening cap at the top and the man would come once a week and fill it.
Anyone know of any companies doing a simpler service than the fancy water cooler ones on the web?*Make every day Caturday*0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards