Fluoride in tap water

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

Oh sod off - can't you tell when the pi$$ is being taken??

Homeopathy is based on dilutions so infintessimally small that there would be NOTHING but water in a homeopathic mouthwash - if indeed they exist!

My questions on alternative science were to see what Bernard defines as 'alternative' Not what I define it as.

..........................................................................:whistle:

haggle_2

it's better for teeth having it in the water. Think of the toothpaste you could save.

Dave101t

id move water companies if fluoride was introduced and start a national hate campaign.
nothing against fluoride, but if you brush your teeth its simply not necessary, how many people do you know that dont brush?
(i know im simplifying)

anudeglory

Dave101t wrote: »

id move water companies if fluoride was introduced

You would, therefore, also be moving regions.

Dave101t wrote: »

and start a national hate campaign.

Well, that is sensible! Nothing like a debate based on feeling and whim rather than cold hard evidence and facts.

Dave101t wrote: »

nothing against fluoride

So the hate campaign would just be for fun?

Dave101t wrote: »

how many people do you know that dont brush?

Ask a dentist? Compare the British to the Americans?

Dave101t wrote: »

(i know im simplifying)

:T

poshnosh

tbs624, you seem really clued up about flouride. I have always been advised against drinking tap water and using toothpastes with flouride (and thats nearly all of them on the supermarket shelf). I have now swapped to a herbal one. Also I dont drink tap water - prefer bottled water instead. Used to live in birmingham before I moved to manchester, and noticed a great difference with the water.
Thank you for all your knowledge

tbs624

poshnosh wrote: »

tbs624, you seem really clued up about flouride. I have always been advised against drinking tap water and using toothpastes with flouride (and thats nearly all of them on the supermarket shelf). I have now swapped to a herbal one. Also I dont drink tap water - prefer bottled water instead. Used to live in birmingham before I moved to manchester, and noticed a great difference with the water.
Thank you for all your knowledge

poshnosh - thanks for your post. Unfortunately, you may want to start saving for a reverse osmosis water filter - the Manchester area seems to be on the list for water fluoridation proposals to be pushed forward. See here . Search on the North West Water Fluoridation Evaluation Group and their "enabling work". It's likely that the sham "public consultation procedure" will begin late 2009 in the Manchester area though it remains to be seen whether the Southampton version of democracy will be applied ( as in: vote against water fluoridation and a government quango will push the scheme through regardless)

There is nevertheless likely to be strong local opposition fron the Green Party and groups such as Manchester against Fluoridation See here for views from Bolton, Greater Manchester.Pendle and Blackburn councillors in the NW have also raised concerns - see the site for UK Councils Against Fluoridation

You may also find this 2003 Times article interesting.

And of course Manchester School of Dentistry is undertaking research on behalf of the National Fluoride Information Centre (pro-wf) which looks at the public perception of fluorosis. Perhaps as in" let's see how much we can get away with before Joe and Joanna public are worried by how their kids teeth look after a few years swallowing water to which the industrial by-product/waste product fluorosilicic acid has been added" - worth another reminder that any level of fluorosis is evidence of toxicity within the body

majestic01

This is an absolutely epic post!
I'm still not any closer to actually knowing if fluoride is safe. I drink tap water and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with me? But then that's a matter of opinion - It's all very confusing!
Maybe I'm confused because I've consumed too much fluoride? or maybe not!

Ben84

BernardM wrote: »

When you read this excellent article. It clearly exposes conventional medicine and what damage it can do. Can you find any alternative science or practice that has caused this much misery and death.

http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/breastcancerratedrop.html

If HRT is a medicine, then what illness does it treat?

There's a lot of dispute about it in medicine, based on its usefulness and potential side effects, so without any common agreement I'm unconvinced it shows anything clear about medicince in general.

Anyway, what does a dispute about HRT tell us about fluoride? Two entirely different compounds, with different aims, and as far as I'm aware are being advocated by entirely different people and organisations. This seems like yet another attempt to criticise by some abstract negative association. We've had everything from the atom bomb project to sarin, and yet there really is no connection to any of this stuff. If there is something wrong with fluoride, then you should be able to present it while only talking about fluoride.

As for medical studies, certain parts of the alternative market are eager to highlight whenever conventional medicines are found to have any negative aspects, but they have yet to admit that a lot of of the popular alternative products have been tested to the same standards and were found to be entirely useless for their intended use.

It's clear that while a few medicines are found to have negative side effects, there are thousands out there which are working well and have been used long term, and many studies prove this. However, the negative results do tend to generate more interest due to their being negative, and we should be concerned by these individual medicines whenever something negative is found, but to try and turn the results of one test in to a meaningful conclusion about all the other medicines out there is just absurd.

Each medicine or treatment needs to be tested and monitored individually to determine how effective it is. Unfortunately some will always turn out to have unwanted effects. This is the reality of taking compounds that influence the way our bodies work. No effective medicine can avoid this. The popular line that alternatives have less or no side effects is largely based on their having not been tested (hence none being found), lack of strict regulations such as those applied to conventional medicines so that tests do not need to be reported, or even that they contain no active compounds and are just food extracts. However, even 100% natural materials can have nasty side effects. Peanuts can kill a small number of people who have a serious allergy. This highlights another aspect of side effects, we all respond differently and cannot assume for example that just because they are poisonous to some people that peanuts are poisoning everyone who eats them.

Ben84

tbs624 wrote: »

Those standard bottles of fluoride mouthwash( which you probably have a line of on a shelf at your practice reception) contain artificial dyes, artifical sweeteners, stuff like chlorhexidine gluconate ( which can, ironically, stain your teeth), ethanol (ethyl alcohol),hydrogen peroxide and so on.

What exactly is wrong with these ingredients? That they're artificial?

Does it actually matter if something is artificial, or tell us anything useful about its properties?

tbs624

Ben84 wrote: »

If HRT is a medicine, then what illness does it treat?

classed as a medicine, yes.

Ben84 wrote: »

There's a lot of dispute about it in medicine, based on its usefulness and potential side effects, so without any common agreement I'm unconvinced it shows anything clear about medicince in general.

As you are presumably a bloke (and probably a youngish one at that) your views on HRT’s usefulness are a total irrelevance IMO (as are the views of most blokes) but especially so to those women who have developed cancer after using it, having been misled about the possibility of that happening. HRT/menopause=yet more big profits for the pharma companies.

Ben84 wrote: »

Anyway, what does a dispute about HRT tell us about fluoride? Two entirely different compounds, with different aims, and as far as I'm aware are being advocated by entirely different people and organisations. This seems like yet another attempt to criticise by some abstract negative association.

You do struggle with other people’s points don’t you Ben? The point is that those who flag the use of ingested fluoride added via the water supplies as “safe” can offer no more certainty than could those who promoted HRT, or any of the other drugs or health initiatives that were pushed along as safe and subsequently turned out to be anything but.

Ben84 wrote: »

As for medical studies, certain parts of the alternative market are eager to highlight whenever conventional medicines are found to have any negative aspects, but they have yet to admit that a lot of of the popular alternative products have been tested to the same standards and were found to be entirely useless for their intended use.

I would agree with you there but AFAIAA no-one is suggesting that we pop any of those into everybody’s water supplies, forcing those who object to it to pay out for expensive reverse osmosis systems on top of their water bills.

Ben84 wrote: »

Each medicine or treatment needs to be tested and monitored individually to determine how effective it is. Unfortunately some will always turn out to have unwanted effects. This is the reality of taking compounds that influence the way our bodies work. No effective medicine can avoid this.

but, as a general standard, those who neither want nor need a particular medicine aren’t expected to swallow it or to pay for it are they?

Ben84 wrote: »

The popular line that alternatives have less or no side effects is largely based on their having not been tested (hence none being found), lack of strict regulations such as those applied to conventional medicines so that tests do not need to be reported, or even that they contain no active compounds and are just food extracts.

Now that sounds pretty familiar to me - oh, yep, got it - water fluoridation. “We want to dose you all up to treat a (wholly preventable by other means) dental condition in minority by adding fluorosilicic acid to your water supplies - but it isn’t a “medicine”, you know, therefore it doesn’t have to be submitted for that level of testing.” Have a look at Doug Cross’s work on this one.

Ben84 wrote: »

However, even 100% natural materials can have nasty side effects.

Certainly can - look at those skeletal fluorosis levels in those countries with naturally occurring high levels of fluoride.

Ben84 wrote: »

Peanuts can kill a small number of people who have a serious allergy. This highlights another aspect of side effects, we all respond differently and cannot assume for example that just because they are poisonous to some people that peanuts are poisoning everyone who eats them.

..but then I assume that you wouldn’t consider force feeding peanuts to the whole population and it’s precisely because we all respond differently to what is taken into our bodies that it is wrong to enforce wholesale dosing of an entire population because a minority aren’t eating appropriately and haven’t received appropriate dental care.