Fluoride in tap water

walmslei

Low fluoride toothpastes are maybe not a bad idea - surely if you absolutely cannot prevent a kid from swallowing the stuff then it is a sensible precaution. My child for example, brushes her teeth more because she likes the taste of mint I think rather than the fact she is doing it for her own good - and personally if she gets her own toothpaste which makes the whole process less clinical then frankly I (and all dentists really) should be for it.

At three or four times a day frankly I suspect even if she brushed her teeth with unfluoridated toothpaste she'd still have better teeth than a kid living in a fluoridated area who doesn't have a toothbursh.

My point regarding the fact that the removal of social/economic factors in providing toothpaste, toothbrushes and even dental care (which isn't free - even on the NHS!), are perhaps more important issues than this.

Skipping over political points and basing this on science is simply wrong - The factors here are education and parental responsiblity and the problems you witness with 'dental cavities' unfortunately extend much further into society than that specific problem I fear!

Toothsmith

walmslei wrote: »

Low fluoride toothpastes are maybe not a bad idea - surely if you absolutely cannot prevent a kid from swallowing the stuff then it is a sensible precaution. My child for example, brushes her teeth more because she likes the taste of mint I think rather than the fact she is doing it for her own good - and personally if she gets her own toothpaste which makes the whole process less clinical then frankly I (and all dentists really) should be for it.

At three or four times a day frankly I suspect even if she brushed her teeth with unfluoridated toothpaste she'd still have better teeth than a kid living in a fluoridated area who doesn't have a toothbursh.

My point regarding the fact that the removal of social/economic factors in providing toothpaste, toothbrushes and even dental care (which isn't free - even on the NHS!), are perhaps more important issues than this.

Skipping over political points and basing this on science is simply wrong - The factors here are education and parental responsiblity and the problems you witness with 'dental cavities' unfortunately extend much further into society than that specific problem I fear!

Indeed education does play a big part.

Lesson 1 - if you only put a smear of adult toothpaste on a toddlers brush, then there will never be enough to swallow to do any harm whatsoever. Fluoride overdose symptoms really only occur if kids physically get into the bathroom cabinet and eat a few tubes of the stuff.

Low fluoride toothpastes are neither use nor ornament when it comes to any beneficial effects of fluoride.

Lesson 2 - How often a kid brushes their teeth is not the most important factor in whether a kid gets cavities or not.

The key is diet.

Good toothbrushing with a toothpaste containing a theraputic amount of fluoride has been shown to be an effective preventative measure. (Vastly superior to brushing with low on fluoride free toothpastes) But the key is to have no more than 3 or 4 sugar/acid attacks on the teeth each day.


Hope that helps.

jinnan_tonnix

Toothsmith wrote: »

The F- ion is an F- ion. It doesn't come any simpler.

That's fluorine. It was writing about the fluorides which are present in, or are added to, water. My point was to try to refute the argument that natural fluoride in the water establishes that other synthetic fluorides are safe. They are different substances. Even if they do contain fluorine.

Toothsmith wrote: »

Allthe fluoride salts used to fluoridate water can occur naturally.

As do strontium and polonium. But I don't fancy these in my drinking water either.
Or are you saying that different parts of the country have different fluoride compounds present naturally in their water supply? I thought it was just calcium fluoride?

Toothsmith wrote: »

There is no evidence of any detremental effect on the bone. This dosn't stop anti F- s implying it all the time though!

But that's not the same as proving that it's harmless. I really don't know enough about this. I've read quite a few articles, some say there is a real risk, some say that the risks are anecdotal, and some say there's no risk.

But to determine if there is any risk, we (or other large sections of the population) must be subject to a slow-burning science experiment.
Maybe after forty or fifty years of being subject to a constant fluoride dose, a person's skeleton might be fine. Maybe not. I don't want my splendid frame to be more prone to fractures in my golden years.


This debate could run forever (and it's a good one, too)


You sum it up perfectly here:

Toothsmith wrote: »

The key is diet.

Good toothbrushing with a toothpaste containing a theraputic amount of fluoride has been shown to be an effective preventative measure. (Vastly superior to brushing with low on fluoride free toothpastes) But the key is to have no more than 3 or 4 sugar/acid attacks on the teeth each day.


Hope that helps.

I don't want to be seen scoring a cheap point in my favour but your quote sums up the solution perfectly. Personally, I think water fluoridation in unnecessary. Simple dental hygiene and -as you say- a sensible diet is all that's needed.

Consider this hypothetical dilemma:
Imagine that a drug has been invented that suppresses the appetite of people, but only in those that are obese. The manufacturers have assured everyone that it causes no known medical problems, and trials have borne this out.
Would you object to this harmless drug being introduced to the country's water supply? It would cut the obesity problem at a stroke.

I think this draws an interesting parallel to the fluoride-in-water plan.

Toothsmith

Can you name me one thing on this planet that has been proved to be harmless???????

Such a thing does not exist.

We eat, drink, touch, smell, drive, fly, breath and wear harmful things from the moment we are born to the moment we shuffle off this mortal coil.

If you avoid everything that hasn't been proved to be safe, you cannot possibly exist, as nothing has or ever can be!!!

Of cours the debate will go on and on as long as people bring complete irrelavences like strontium or mythical anti obesity dugs.

But, the questions are:-

• Does fluoride, at a level of 1ppm have a beneficial effect on a population's dental health?

Undoubtably yes.

• Does fluoride at a level of 1ppm cause any adverse effects on that population.

None have ever been shown.

• Is the addition of fluoride at a level of 1ppm a cost effective public health measure?

Undoubtably yes.

• Should individual communities be allowed to decide if they wish to have this measure deployed in their communities?

I belive people should be given the proper scientific facts (Not the bull$hit, innuendo and lies) and allowed to decide for themselves.

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

...We eat, drink, touch, smell, drive, fly, breath and wear harmful things from the moment we are born to the moment we shuffle off this mortal coil.

The difference is that for most of those, except the breathe bit, we do have a measure of choice which we won't have if our drinking water supply is fluoridated.

Toothsmith wrote: »

Of cours the debate will go on and on as long as people bring complete irrelavences like strontium or mythical anti obesity dugs.

I don't view JT's comment as a complete irrelevance - it is, as s/he said, a hypothetical dilemma but there is an obvious parallel with the fluoride debate, in that the idea is that the whole population is dosed to treat a minority who can't/won't take care of their own/their children's health.

Toothsmith wrote: »

• Should individual communities be allowed to decide if they wish to have this measure deployed in their communities?

I belive people should be given the proper scientific facts (Not the bull$hit, innuendo and lies) and allowed to decide for themselves.

And what would your answer be if, after you had given them these " proper scientific facts", people still said "erm, actually, no thanks"? I'm wondering if what you mean by "proper" is science that you personally agree with?

The problem is that in any area of science, there will be conflicting views, even/especially among the "experts" - if everyone agreed all the time there would be little purpose in publishing any new paper on anything.

I agree that there is an awful lot of "bs and lies" put out on the topic - see my post above.

Even the Government-backed blurb admits, however, that the decay problem is down to bad diet and poor dental hygiene.

Ben84

jinnan_tonnix wrote: »

The artificially added fluoride compounds are synthesized fluorides such as sodium fluoride or fluosilicic acid. Our friend, sodium fluorosilicate (a common source of tap-water fluoride) has an LD50 of 125 mg/kg.

As an aside, we see that arsenic has an LD50 of 763.

Vitamin D, a substance which is vital to life and created by your own body (can't get more natural than that) has an LD50 of around 600 mg/kg, which by the logic you're using suggests it's dangerous as it will be poisonous at lower levels than arsenic. However, this doesn't represent the reality that vitamin D is normally very good for us. Removing everything with an LD50 below arsenic from our environment and diet would probably kill us as the list would include many important substances.

This is a terribly misleading way to compare things, which is why I warned against using toxicology studies' data in my earlier post.

As I said, dose is the important thing. As another poster explained, the average person would have to drink something in the order of a swimming pool of water to even get close to the toxic level of fluoride consumption.

I weigh about 71 Kg, so I would have to drink 8,875 litres of water to to reach the fluoride LD50. That much water would also weigh around 8,875 kg. The average person in the UK uses 150 liters of water a day, so 8,875 litres of water is about two month's water. So, to put it in perspective, I would have to somehow consume all the water I use in two months, every single bath, clothes washing/cleaning water, cooking water, watering the plants and flushing the toilet, all at once to overdose on fluoride. This is not even in the realm of unlikely, it's completely and totally impossible.

However, I can assure you that the water itself would kill you long before the fluoride would. Excess water consumption washes out the salt from your blood and causes cells to burst in large numbers. Even water isn't so healthy when you consume too much. There was an article last year about a woman in America who died from drinking about 7 litres of water.

The important point is that in domestic water the fluoride isn't anywhere near toxic levels, even extreme cases where someone drinks nothing but tap water will be nowhere close. Assuming I drink 2 litres of water a day (that's about 8 glasses/mugs), it would take me around 12 year to consume 8,875 litres of water.

12 years exposure to almost anything we consume on a daily basis all at once, from oxygen to butter would easily kill you (yes, people have died from eating too much butter, and I don't mean diet related diseases, I mean the butter was on the death cerificate), so the 50/50 chance of 12 years fluoride exposure all at once killing you actually seems quite good right now!

jinnan_tonnix

Ben84 wrote: »

This is a terribly misleading way to compare things, which is why I warned against using toxicology studies' data in my earlier post.

Good point which I accept. I used the toxicity levels to highlight the differences between the compounds, which seems has muddied the waters (to reuse a metaphor).

As it stands, we can do our best to keep informed and to read up on a subjects of choice. There would certainly seem to be two camps - fiercely pro and fiercely anti. Perhaps the ambivalent ones are just watching as the sparks fly.

Furthermore, it's clear that there are two main arguments: 1. Whether or not fluoride poses a risk to health, 2. Whether it is morally correct that a government can impose mass medication through the drinking water.

I don't claim to posses all the facts (far from it - one could spend a lifetime researching it), but my random meanderings from Hardy Limeback to the apparent backtracking of the Irish government on infant formula has led me to form the opinion that I don't want it in my water.

You could say 'well that's your choice', but if compulsory fluoridation appears in my area then that choice is gone.

Toothsmith

Fluoride will only ever be added to a water supply after consultation with the affected community.

If it ever gets off the ground, you will have your say along with your neighbours.

Surprisingly enough, I am not fiercely pro, and certainly not anti, but I am fiercely anti-bull.

If a community, given the facts and spared the emotive words, decide they don't want it, then that's fine.

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

jinnan_tonnix

Toothsmith wrote: »

I am fiercely anti-bull.

I like that.

tbs624

I can’t agree with your assertion that its safety and effectiveness have been proved beyond doubt: “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide” and “The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.” ( The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), York University) The Swedish scientist Aarvid Carlsson , a co-recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, has said “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology”.

We perhaps need to bear in mind that scientists were wrong about cigarette smoking - didn’t some of those scientists believe that lung cancer was caused by road pollution? We could find plenty more possible examples of where Governments, scientists et al have got it wrong- lead in petrol and paint, thalidomide, HRT, dioxins, PCBs, the Dalkon shield, CJD, and then let’s look at tetracycline drugs and what those do to teeth, amoxycillin et al and hypoplastic enamel? Hydrocortisone ointments subsequently found to thin the skin, yet prescribed for eczema & dermatitis without warnings to that effect? I could go on but I think there’s enough there to show that those words “safe and effective” may have a hollow ring to them….. Surely, if the case for fluoridation was so irrefutable, wouldn’t all countries be clamouring to have/keep their water supplies adulterated? Norway, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Italy, France, Denmark, Finland etc? Yet, some have never had fluoridation and, of those that have, many are abandoning it - witness Basle in Switzerland, abandoning it after 40 years, citing environmental concern and lack of evidence of its benefit. Between 1990 and 2000, over 75 US and Canadian cities either rejected fluoridation or abandoned existing schemes.In the UK, studies have shown there is no difference in incidence of DMF (decayed, missing or filled) teeth between Gateshead (fluoridated water ), and socially-comparable, Liverpool (water not fluoridated)

On the subject of consultation, its likely that the whole thing will be a sham, with carefully selected phrasing on forms, and glossy “pro” leafleting campaigns, funded by huge amounts of money: members of the Labour Government seems to have made clear their commitment to fluoridation - witness Frank Dobson’s "if necessary by subtle means" comment to The Dentist, way back in 1998.

The word “emotive”, which always seems to be used for anything that goes against the “established” viewpoint, will probably sum up the wording we will get on the consultation forms. There will be much focus on the fact that its children’s tooth decay and we should, after all, want to eradicate health inequalities and help children with bad teeth even if it’s down to a lack of parental diligence and/or insufficient NHS dentistry funding, and there are other valid ways of resolving the issue.

It's valid to have this discussion here on a money saving site if only because people can start budgeting now for their porcelain veneers (to hide the fluorosis) and their reverse osmosis water filters, and the Government can relax in the knowledge that it's only cost them around 50p per head to dose us all up without consent.