Fluoride in tap water

BernardM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1156783/Fluoride-water--dont-want-it.html

Ben84

The whole thing sticks on one single point, and it's a major one, the claim that the fluoride added to the water is different to other fluoride. I suppose they have to claim this, because fluoride is in fact quite an abundant element, already found in the water, food and soil in varying amounts, and we don't have any reason to suspect it's more toxic than any other trace element, such as iron or copper.

To support the claim that a common trace element is toxic requires some detaching from the fact that it's abundant in nature and has proven harmless in moderate amounts.

Fluoride is single ionised atoms, and all the fluoride ions are identical no matter if nature put them there or they were put there purposefully. All atoms of the same element are identical. This isn't a guess, a random claim or whatever, it's a fundamental part of science that you can easily find in all text books on the subject, up there with the theory of relativity and the laws of motion. To suggest that the fluoride ions are different is as incredulous and absurd as suggestion that gravity goes the other way. It's not even a half truth, it's clearly and entirely made up by someone who doesn't actually understand chemistry at even GCSE level.

Now the claim that adding fluoride to water could introduce other contaminants I'll accept, but the special toxic fluoride ions that break all the rules of atomic physics I'm not believing a word about.

It's fiction, and yet by being outrageous and absurd, the fluoride protesters have managed to gain some kind of support. Their dramatic claims about crumbling bones, cancer and dodgy teeth that will beset us all are in total contrast to the millions of healthy people who come in to contact with hundred-fold greater concentrations of fluoride in toothpaste, mouthwash and many food items that natural contain it every day. However, what they lack in actual science or evidence they make up for in emotive effect.

The reason why they get such a swift brush off and dismissal by most scientists, governments and big organisations is because they're talking ridicules nonsense, not because as claimed that there's a conspiracy to poison us.

However, don't just take my word for it. I suggest anyone who is still in doubt goes to the library and finds a good chemistry book. The internet is potentially a very bad place to look things up. Anyone can publish a page, regardless of their ability or understanding, as shown by the earlier anti-fluoride page that had totally mixed up chemical formulae, or the one that claimed the EU had banned fluoride when no such thing has ever happened or even been considered. It's less about reality and more about some kind of Chinese whisper effect where the claims progressively shift away from the reality, not to mention the self fulfilling nature of typing things like "toxic fluorides" in to a search engine. You get this whole subculture of sites based on sites that used sites as their original source. They're just feeding each other and creating their own bubble of disinformation.

tr3mor

Ben84 wrote: »

All atoms of the same element are identical.

I'm sorry but I'm going to stick to my free-range organic atoms from Waitrose.

:money:

Ben84

tr3mor wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm going to stick to my free-range organic atoms from Waitrose.

:money:

Lol

While we're on that topic, I just know someone is going to say "what about isotopes?"

They aren't particularly relevant in this type of situation. Fluorine has only one stable isotope.

tbs624

taxi97w wrote: »

I was brought up in Australia where they added flouride to the water. Reason being, if I remember rightly, was to promote stronger healthier teeth. No-one seemed bothered about it, and I must say, now that I'm around the 50 year old mark, have no cavities and have never needed any dental work. In fact, (hangs head in shame but shouldn't) have only been to the dentist on a few occassions to have my teeth cleaned, when it was free as I was on unemployment benefits.....

Tooth decay is not caused by a lack of fluoride in the water - it is caused by over consumption of sugary processed food and drink and a lack of appropriate dental hygiene & lack of routine professional dental care.

Why should the whole population, especially those who may have specific health difficulties rendering them at heightened risk from the ingestion of artificially fluoridated water, have to be "medicated" because of a lack of appropriate Government funding for dietary education & properly targeted dental care, and a lack of personal and/or parental responsibility for dental hygiene & getting yourself along to a dentist?

Fluoride is most effective as a topical application and there are plenty of alternative methods of “treatment” for those who want to have access to it, without impinging on the health rights of others who don’t want or need that treatment. Your point about not being able to visit a dentist except when the service was available to you free of cost is partly why the water fluoridation "solution" appeals to governments - it' s cheaper than providing proper dental care or dealing with poverty, and diet issues.

As for saying that no-one in Australia seemed bothered by water fluoridation, as a child you'd probably be unaware of the politics around the topic and you also have to remember that the research on water fluoridation came from the same era in which people puffed away on their ciggies and worked happily with asbestos in ignorance of the risks.

Lilibeth's already posted some useful links up but here's a few more:

Dr Philip R N Sutton who, as a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Oral Medicine and Surgery, University of Melbourne, published the landmark "Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials" (Melbourne University Press, Melbourne) detailing some of the serious deficiencies in the North American fluoridation 'trials' at Grand Rapids, Evanston, Brantford and Newburgh.

Former Federal Health Minister & office holder at the 1975 World Health Assembly Dr Doug Everingham says no to water fluoridation

Sir Arthur Amies, Dean of the faculty of Dental Science, Melbourne University: "In my opinion the claim for complete medical safety of fluoride is entirely false."

“New Evidence on Fluoridation”
MarkDiesendorf 1 , John Colquhoun 2 , Bruce J. Spittle 3 , Douglas N. Everingham 4 Frederick W. Clutterbuck 5

1Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney
2Department of Education, University of Auckland, Auckland
3Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin
4Former Federal Minister for Health, Canberra
5Medical Practitioner, Queensland

Australian Fluoridation News
Central Coast Pure Water Association
SE Queensland residentsrally against fluoride
"Fluoride - the Greatest Fraud" Queensland Independent Senate Candidate Selwyn Johnston
Queenslanders against water fluoridation
E petition - Queensland
Parts of new South Wales:
In Victoria

Dr Andrew Harms, BDS(Adel)SA (Past President, Australian Dental Assn S.A.):

"Water fluoridation is outdated and unsafe. Decay rates have declined in developed countries for the past 35 years with or without water fluoridation. The disclosure recently that the fluoridation chemicals include 1ppb arsenic has shocked me. The Australian Dental Association has failed to take seriously the health risks raised in the NRC 2007 Report. The recent warning bulletin issued by the American Dental Association for mothers NOT to use fluoridated water to reconstitute infant formula should not be ignored.”

There are many more sites and links that show clearly that Australians share our concerns about water fluoridation.

tbs624

Penelope_Penguin wrote: »

...Just asking as I had no idea there was such antipathy towards fluoridation, do those who object to fluoride in water use fluoride toothpaste ...

Some do, some don't, but there are two points there:
(1) you *can* buy non-fluoride toothpastes so you have a choice, which won't be there for you if the water is adulterated with fluorosilicic acid, and
(2) the application is topical rather than by ingestion, unless you regularly swallow your toothpaste. Interestingly, the studies indicate that topical application is the most effective form of treatment, for those who want or need it.

I don't want or need it, for myself or my family, and certainly not in the drinking water for which I am obliged to pay.

Toothsmith

lilibeth wrote: »

They are NOT doctors the law was changed a few years ago to formally allow them to use 'Dr' as a courtesy title. Much like someone with a phd.

Actually, that's the wrong way round.

The only people who ARE 'Doctors' are people with a PhD - that's what the 'D' stands for.

People with medical qualifications use the title 'Dr' as a courtesy, as do dentists now. Neither of us are 'entitled' to it.

tbs624

tr3mor wrote: »

And don't get me started on the DHMO scandal!

http://www.dhmo.org/

:mad::mad::mad:

:rolleyes:Yawn .......................

tr3mor wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm going to stick to my free-range organic atoms from Waitrose.

:money:

I know we shouldn't feed the trolls but haven't you a paper round to do or some homework to be getting on with.....................................

lilibeth

Toothsmith wrote: »

Actually, that's the wrong way round.

The only people who ARE 'Doctors' are people with a PhD - that's what the 'D' stands for.

People with medical qualifications use the title 'Dr' as a courtesy, as do dentists now. Neither of us are 'entitled' to it.

WRONG

A press reception was held late last year to mark the tenth anniversary of dentists being able to use the courtesy title ‘Doctor’. The reception provided an opportunity to hear the story from those closely involved with bringing about this change.

On 14 November 1995 the General Dental Council decided that it did not regard the use of the courtesy title 'Doctor' as a matter of serious professional misconduct and deleted the relevant wording from its guidance (the so-called 'Red Book').

A few days later the GDC Registrar wrote to dentists to say that this allowed dentists to use the title. They had to take care to ensure that they did not use it in such a way as to mislead patients or public into thinking that they were anything other than dentists.

http://www.dentistry.co.uk/news/news_detail.php?id=208

In any case you are muddying the waters. Fact is a dentist is NOT qualified to make judgements about the effect of toxins in the body.
He or she is ONLY a dentist

mech_2

Ben84 wrote: »

The whole thing sticks on one single point, and it's a major one, the claim that the fluoride added to the water is different to other fluoride. I suppose they have to claim this, because fluoride is in fact quite an abundant element, already found in the water, food and soil in varying amounts, and we don't have any reason to suspect it's more toxic than any other trace element, such as iron or copper.

[snip]

It's fiction, and yet by being outrageous and absurd, the fluoride protesters have managed to gain some kind of support. Their dramatic claims about crumbling bones, cancer and dodgy teeth that will beset us all are in total contrast to the millions of healthy people who come in to contact with hundred-fold greater concentrations of fluoride in toothpaste, mouthwash and many food items that natural contain it every day.

If the above is true, it can't possibly have any effect on anyone. So isn't it a waste of time and money to push its addition to drinking water? What would be the point?