Fluoride in tap water

Ben84

mech wrote: »

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?

Fluoride can be found in exactly the same form as that added to tap water in a huge range of food types, and in most cases got there through natural causes. The USDA have recently published a database of the foods that commonly contain fluoride, and it's a big list with many items such as grape juice containing more than double the PPM of average fluoridated water, and another major source (potentially more than fluoridated tap water) is bottled water, which is not surprising when you understand what is happening as many bottled waters have filtered through rocks, which break down naturally to release fluoride ions. Fluoride has been abundant in our environment since before humans existed, and we've always been ingesting it to some extent. Prehistoric man was drinking fluoridated water, the % fluoride found in their teeth and bones is used in archaeology to determine where an individual came from as the consumption of water from each area results in a different % of fluoride.

However, the anti-fluoride groups don't seem to know this or want to believe it. Many advise replacing tap with bottled water when some basic research would show that fluoride is also in bottled water and using it might even result in more fluoride consumption. They generally have a very poor grasp of the topic and don't really know what fluoride is, where it comes from or what it does. Those who realise fluoride isn't some kind of modern invention maintain the fluoride is different, but this is not true and goes against many major scientific ideas. When called up on this they're like "what do you mean atomic chemistry, what does the major rule we're breaking matter?" and have no idea they're in the realm of made-up science. They're just caught up in the scaremongering.

There's an indirect truth in here, which may be feeding the idea fluoride is synthetic and bad. There are a huge range of fluoride containing compound, such as the now well known CFCs that deplete the ozone layer, which have various unfortunate side effects on humans and the environment. However, they're covalently bonded compounds with individual structures that have nothing to do with fluoride ions which are naturally abundant and harmless. It's worth mentioning that carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, three abundant elements that make up a large mass of the human body, when covalently bound in a specific structure make cyanide. It's about structure, not the individual atoms.

As for the use of adding fluoride to tap water. I'm not sure it does make any difference as fluoride is fairly abundant, and the huge majority of people in Europe already use toothpaste and mouthwashes that contain it anyway. I've never actually supported adding fluoride to the tap water, it's readily available in dental care products. I just object to made up science. Why are people who clearly know nothing about chemistry, some who evidently in their significant mistakes don't even understand the GCSE level stuff, making sites about chemistry and claiming to be authorities on the topic. The general quality of what I've seen so far is very bad.

Anyway, this is the USDA site with a link to the .pdf report on fluoride in various foods. As you'll see, fluoride has been found through extensive analytical tests to be naturally abundant in the environment and our food.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=6312

melancholly

just on the doctor title debate - which seems like a rather pointless side issue - the 'real 'doctors are those with a phd.... or 'medical doctors' with an MD... not really important but if shouting posts are being made, they should be checked for accuracy.

Toothsmith

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.

lilibeth wrote: »

WRONG

I'm sorry, but there was nothing wrong with my statement.

I said dentists are allowed to use it NOW like Drs are.

You said people with PhDs are courtesy Drs - that was WRONG. They are PROPER doctors.

tbs624

melancholly wrote: »

just on the doctor title debate - which seems like a rather pointless side issue - the 'real 'doctors are those with a phd.... or 'medical doctors' with an MD... not really important but if shouting posts are being made, they should be checked for accuracy.

:rolleyes: If it seems pointless to you then why add to it Melancholly? Lilibeth did explain again the point that she was trying to make :

lilibeth wrote: »

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

my emboldening.

melancholly

tbs624 wrote: »

:rolleyes: If it seems pointless to you then why add to it Melancholly? Lilibeth did explain again the point that she was trying to make :

my emboldening.

sorry - if someone is posting with capitals and shouting, as Lilibeth was, it's worth pointing out they were wrong with their facts.

perhaps some manners could return to this debate - the tone is getting rude and no-one comes away from that looking good.

Toothsmith

My position on this now is that it has all become a side issue.

78% of the people (who expressed an opinion) in Southampton were against water fluoridation. Despite this, it still seems to be going ahead.

My only doubts about water fluoridation were on the 'mass medication' arguments, which I am not happy with. This action of ignoring the majority view, is in my opinion very wrong.

I am completely against some of the arguments on this thread though that claim all sorts of false science (e.g. different types of fluoride). This sort of complete billhooks gets completely misunderstood (or believed even!) and sometimes puts people off fluoride in it's most useful forms in toothpaste.

Much as I detest the imposition of fluoridated water on a population who have said 'no' - I feel that the way in which the argument has been presented by the anti-F lobby, they have brought it on themselves.

Had the arguments stayed withing the realms of fact, rather than hysteria, the 'no' vote might well have carried more weight.

I'm geting off the merry-go-round now.

lilibeth

melancholly wrote: »

sorry - if someone is posting with capitals and shouting, as Lilibeth was, it's worth pointing out they were wrong with their facts.

perhaps some manners could return to this debate - the tone is getting rude and no-one comes away from that looking good.

You appear to be the one lack manners madam. And as such your opinion of what looks rude is of no concern to me.

What I have posted is correct and there is a very big difference between typing in all caps and highlighting individual words to emphasize a key point. If you are unable to understand the difference then frankly I don't think you are in a position to be passing judgement on me. So kindly keep your personal attacks to yourself.


In addition madam how pray tell is it a 'side issue' if people entirely UNQUALIFIED² to pass judgement on matters of toxins and their effect on human health is the driving force behind adding a known toxin to our water supply?

A dentist is only a dentist and their opinion on the dangers of fluoridation is no more worthy than that of any other unqualified person. No matter how distorted and inflated the BDA³ and its members views on their own abilities may be.

Footnotes
² I thought twice about capitalising that word out of concern for your delicate constitution. But as in my absence you choose to bang on about my heinous crime not once but twice and in addition insult me personally - I felt it would be churlish of me to disappoint.
³Dear God.. I capitalised BDA as well!:eek: Oh the shame.........

Volcano

lilibeth wrote: »

A dentist is only a dentist and their opinion on the dangers of fluoridation is no more worthy than that of any other unqualified person.........

...though I think I'd prefer to take my chances with my dentist's medical journal comprehension abilities, than say, 'Pat' who packs my salmon fillets for me at Tesco, yet is similarily unqualified.

tbs624

Ben84 wrote: »

Fluoride can be found in exactly the same form as that added to tap water in a huge range of food types, and in most cases got there through natural causes. The USDA have recently published a database of the foods that commonly contain fluoride, and it's a big list…………………..

Ben, you’re not adding anything new there - it’s been highlighted way back in this thread that foodstuffs contain fluoride. One of the Australian links above also includes a list of food & drinks stuffs, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has highlighted the need to look at all exposure to fluoride.

Follow your argument through - add more fluoride to the water supply, and then use that water to make tea, which already contains a high level of fluoride: use it to water crops of foodstuffs that already contain fluoride, and so on… That in itself makes it even more important that we don’t get an extra dose via our drinking water. The WHO highlighted the importance of taking into account the individual’s total ingestion of fluoride but this has been ignored by those who want a cheap fix solution for the problem of dental decay, which is treatable through diet, topical application of fluoride & seeing a dentist now and again.

For someone who wants to be seen as having some scientific credibility your posts contain some very broad generalisations about what you think is known or not known by those people who oppose water fluoridation. I'm not sure why you would assume that those sharing a common view that water fluoridation is wrong are one homogeneous group, whose views must all be erroneous & can be written off.

Amongst that diverse range of people there are scientists whose abilities, expertise and qualifications very probably far exceed your own. There are also differing viewpoints on why it is that water fluoridation is wrong: some dissenters will focus on the health issues, particularly for those who are diabetic, who have renal problems, or thyroid problems, for example. Some may have a young family & will be concerned by the advice on not mixing formula milk with fluoridated water ( as in water that has had its fluoride levels “adjusted”, in the anodyne parlance of the pro-lobby.) Some will focus on the ethical issues of mass medicating a population and others will be appalled at the connivance of governments with the sugar industries and the fertiliser producers. Some will focus their concerns on the wider environmental implications of fluorosilicic acid being transported to our water treatment plans and the fact that there is no guarantee that dosing errors will not be made (see post 347 for details of !!!!-ups at water treatment plants) Some will be outraged that they are legally obliged to pay their water bills but will face additional expenditure on filters etc if they don’t want to drink water with “adjusted” levels of fluoride. Some will be those with medical backgrounds who expect the "precautionary principle" to be applied…the arguments against water fluoridation really don't hinge on one point, nor would the views of all of those people be formed simply from trawling a couple of dodgy websites.

You seek to dismiss those with a different viewpoint to your own by using phrase such as:

Ben84 wrote:

they generally have a very poor grasp of the topic…
they're in the realm of made-up science. They're just caught up in the scaremongering….
being outrageous and absurd…
dramatic claims about crumbling bones, cancer and dodgy teeth…
they're talking ridicules nonsense…..
what they lack in actual science or evidence they make up for in emotive effect……..

but this seems to demonstrate that you are guilty of exactly what you castigate others for doing - because it seems that you are using what you find on the internet on inadequately referenced websites as your sole source of information on what the arguments against water fluoridation actually encompass. Refer back to post number 348.

On the last of your comments as listed above - examine any leaflet put out or web site set up by the pro-fluoridation lobby and we will get heart-rending quotes about children and unnecessary extractions. Often complete with full colour photograph of child under anaesthesia. Emotive? - yep. Intentionally? - definitely.

This would perhaps have less of an effect on how you voted on water additives if it also said, for example:

“This child has been given blackcurrant juice in a bottle since she was 4 months old, and her diet is high in sugary processed foods. Her parents don’t get her to clean her teeth. There is no NHS dentist for her to go to, and even when there was, her parents didn’t take her. Even after we have fluoridated the nation’s water supply her diet will not be changed, the NHS will not be better funded or managed, nor will appropriately targeted & adequately resourced dental services be provided. Her diet will continue to create health problems through her life. You don’t actually need the F stuff, your own kids may need to be treated for dental fluorosis as a result of ingesting it via the water supply, and we have no firm evidence that adding fluoride to your water will be safe for you. The good news though is that the sugar manufacturers and the fertiliser manufacturers will be greatly helped by all of this, since they like to be absolved of their wider responsibilities and its brill for the NHS beancounters as we can dose the lot of you for 50p per head or thereabouts. We're sorry we've been so crap with the NHS and with addressing poverty & dietary education issues but we know you’ll support us with this - how can you not: look at that photo”

Emotive arguments are there on both sides - they are categorically not a tactic employed solely by those who oppose water fluoridation schemes, neither are “off the wall” assertions and “dodgy” websites confined to those who oppose water fluoridation.

Ben84 wrote: »

As for the use of adding fluoride to tap water. I'm not sure it does make any difference as fluoride is fairly abundant, and the huge majority of people in Europe already use toothpaste and mouthwashes that contain it anyway. I've never actually supported adding fluoride to the tap water, it's readily available in dental care products.

Good to read that you don’t support adding fluoride to our water supplies , but again very non- scientific to say that a “huge majority” in Europe use fluoridated products, without some evidence to back that assertion up. However, people do have a choice in the following EU countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France Germany, Hungary Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg,Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, almost all of Spain - ( ditto countries such as Japan) - if they want fluoridated products they can have them, but they don’t have to put up with their own quango equivalent of an SHA sanctioning the addition of fluorosilicic acid to their water supplies.

Ben84 wrote: »

Fluoride has been abundant in our environment since before humans existed, and we've always been ingesting it to some extent. Prehistoric man was drinking fluoridated water, the % fluoride found in their teeth and bones is used in archaeology to determine where an individual came from as the consumption of water from each area results in a different % of fluoride.

(my emboldening) Obviously, if Prehistoric man had the diet of many of the kids today there would probably have been no teeth left for archaeologists to check out. Key point though is that there is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency, and of course Prehistoric man also didn’t have the same level of exposure that we do: not only do we already have fluoride drops, fluoride mouthwashes & toothpaste, fluoride varnishes & sealants, the stuff is already present in foodstuffs as already discussed. We are, as you say, exposed to ever increasing levels of “fluoride containing compounds” so we categorically do not need additional sources, especially not when the intention is that it should be imposed on us via the very basic provision of our drinking water supplies.

Strategic Health Authorities making a decision to add anything to the public water supplies in order to treat a preventable condition in a minority of the population is wrong - utterly, utterly wrong

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

.......78% of the people (who expressed an opinion) in Southampton were against water fluoridation. Despite this, it still seems to be going ahead.

My only doubts about water fluoridation were on the 'mass medication' arguments, which I am not happy with. This action of ignoring the majority view, is in my opinion very wrong.

........Much as I detest the imposition of fluoridated water on a population who have said 'no' - I feel that the way in which the argument has been presented by the anti-F lobby, they have brought it on themselves.

Had the arguments stayed withing the realms of fact, rather than hysteria, the 'no' vote might well have carried more weight.

If you believe the Southampton decision to be wrong then I shall applaud you for your common sense in that part of your post :T - unfortunately you then undermine your "principled" stance somewhat. It's sad that within this thread you seem to have concentrated on the personal denigration of the majority of people who have anti- water F views. As per my comment to Ben, the "anti-F lobby" are a diverse "group" and the SHA in Southampton did indeed receive well -presented arguments, including correspondence from respected scientists and medical/dental practitioners - not only ones living locally but from others around the world.

The fact remains that Alan Johnson made it absolutely clear that the Govt wants to push through water fluoridation - this is the Alan Johnson who highlights the fact that he gave fluoride tablets to his own children. ( Shades of Selwyn Gummer and the old "see me force feed my own child with beef to show you how safe it is" photo opportunity at the height of the BSE crisis) Of course he could just sanction extra supplies of those same F tablets and some toothbrushes and leave our water supplies alone.........

I have already mentioned elsewhere in the thread the fact that the SHA and the pro-F lobby were able to use large sums of public money to push their own views during this "public consultation". When those who oppose water fluoridation asked for a similar amount of funding their request was apparently refused. From the website of Romsey MP Sandra Gidley ( LibDem Shadow Health Minister) :

"The Strategic Health Authority use evidence from a parliamentary group (APPG) to back up their claims that the fluoridation of water is beneficial, although in her submission, Sandra notes that she was an officer on the group and resigned as she felt that the then Chair had made up his mind prior to the enquiry.
"There was a distinct bias in those who were asked to give evidence to the parliamentary group" added Sandra. "The evidence was not balanced between both sides of the argument"

Those in Hampshire who don't want their water supplies fluoridated now face additional personal expense as well as potential health problems - the costs of installing filters and putting away some money to pay for their children to have veneers. Remember those fluorosis figures from the York Review? Apparently information on the costs to the NHS of treating dental fluorosis is not held centrally. We can probably expect that there will be a shift in what is seen as an acceptable level of pitting, staining or flecking just to keep the costs down, so that the only alternative is to pay privately for veneers or other treatment. What was it that was supposed to help in some cases - pumice and hydrochloric acid?