Fluoride in tap water

tbs624

Ben84 wrote: »

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?

Perhaps if you read the whole post again you'd get the point Ben. It was in response to TS's assertion that herbal/homeopathic mouthwashes were a "barmy quack idea" - checking & comparing what's in both types, and indeed their relative properties, allows people to judge for themselves which type they'd like to swill around their mouths and which they'd like to pronounce "quacky".

Ben84

tbs624 wrote: »

classed as a medicine, yes..

That's not the question I asked Bernard. I asked him what it treats, and why he used the word medicine when medicines are only for illnesses. HRT is actually a drug. It's an interesting angle when you follow it through, because it shows that even seemingly non-essential drugs (many people did allegedly stop taking it after the study was published), are for some people very important to them. Even today, despite the evidence it has risks, people are still willing to take it.

Risk vs. advantage is a personal choice, and some people are willing to take the medicine/drug and the associated risk. This focus on side effects, can give a very negative picture about something. We don't just have to consider the medicine/drug, we have to consider the individual cases.

I'll say the obvious for you now - but when you fluoridate the water people don't have a choice. I agree with that, and remind you I don't support adding it to the water. So why keep arguing with me about that point we're both agreeing with?

I also maintain however that most of the claims that fluoride are unhealthy are junk science. If the anti-fluoride groups stopped making up the science as they went along and making extreme claims with no basis behind them, they might actually be getting somewhere right now.

tbs624 wrote: »

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..

All I stated was that there is no common opinion on HRT, so how can we use it to indicate anything about medicine when there are many against it and for it? And when it depends on the individual case too.

As for the relevance of my opinion, you don't actually know anything about me, so perhaps you should ask me why I feel the way I do about something before telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.

tbs624 wrote: »

You do struggle with other people’s points don’t you Ben?

HRT has nothing to do with fluoride. It seems like a diversion that won't turn up anything useful about fluoride, so I won't be talking about HRT any more.

tbs624

Ben84 wrote: »

..... HRT is actually a drug. It's an interesting angle when you follow it through, because it shows that even seemingly non-essential drugs (many people did allegedly stop taking it after the study was published), are for some people very important to them. Even today, despite the evidence it has risks, people are still willing to take it.

*Some* people are -ie, there is choice in the matter.

Ben84 wrote: »

Risk vs. advantage is a personal choice, and some people are willing to take the medicine/drug and the associated risk. This focus on side effects, can give a very negative picture about something. We don't just have to consider the medicine/drug, we have to consider the individual cases...

Personal choice is very important but those of us who neither want nor need fluorosilicic acid adding to our water supplies will be denied that choice, as was clearly indicated by the sham "public consultation" process in Southampton. That denial of personal choice unfortunately also extends to those who have pre-existing medical conditions of their own which render them particularly susceptible to the effects of additional fluoride.

Ben84 wrote: »

I'll say the obvious for you now - but when you fluoridate the water people don't have a choice. I agree with that, and remind you I don't support adding it to the water. So why keep arguing with me about that point we're both agreeing with?

I'm pleased that you say that you don't support fluorosilicic acid being added to to the water supplies but then your arguments on side issues appear to be somewhat confusing.

Ben84 wrote: »

I also maintain however that most of the claims that fluoride are unhealthy are junk science. If the anti-fluoride groups stopped making up the science as they went along and making extreme claims with no basis behind them, they might actually be getting somewhere right now.

You are entitled to your personal view, however, others (including well qualified/eminent scientists) clearly disagree with you and it has been unequivocally shown that the pro-wf lobby have frequently used poor quality studies to try to back up their claims. They rely more on personal denigration of those who oppose their stance than on producing good scientific argument or clear evidence.

You are also totally ignoring the huge finances behind pro-water fluoridation ( as have several other pro-wf posters on this thread).The proponents of WF use well-crafted anodyne language to present their argument and ask the public "leading questions" . The fact remains that this is about big business, environmental issues and a government that has failed to adequately & specifically target the problems of inappropriate diet and lack of appropriate dental hygiene/back up care for a minority of the population.

Ben84 wrote: »

All I stated was that there is no common opinion on HRT, so how can we use it to indicate anything about medicine when there are many against it and for it? And when it depends on the individual case too.

:wall: Cor blimey Ben, it's really not that hard. AFIAA Bernard was using it as an example of where something is trumpeted as a safe effective answer to a "health issue" and yet subsequently turns out to have far more serious health implications for those who take it. It doesn't help the women with cancer to be told that perhaps the studies didn't state clearly enough what the risks were or that there was not enough good quality evidence at the time so the potential risks may have been played down. You also continue to ignore the huge profits involved in particular sections of the pharma industry.

Let's not forget that much if the inital "science" piped up by the pro-wf lobby came from the very same era that told the population tobacco was safe - there is even clear evidence of docs and dentists promoting specific brands of ciggy.

Let's have an absolutely clear audit to show who funds which studies and that includes Universities who may have a separate dept which is receiving support from any company or organisation that may have a vested interest. Let's have open access to the financial worth to the govt of the sugar/carp food/fertilisers producing companies , and let's know who their lobbyists are. Let's hear exactly who funds the " independent" promoters of water fluoridation and let's have the BDA give some figures on how much income /CPT funding/conference sponsorship comes from companies who sell fizzy drinks or produce F containing products.

Ben84 wrote: »

HRT has nothing to do with fluoride. It seems like a diversion that won't turn up anything useful about fluoride, so I won't be talking about HRT any more.

I agree- HRT per se has nothing to with fluoride but, as already stated, Bernard offered it up as a fair example of how medicine/science sometimes gets it wrong with disastrous effect: I 'm not sure why it is so hard for you to follow his line of reasoning.

Let's remember too that *topical* application of the wonder-F has been shown to be helpful for those who can't lay off the sugar, wield a toothbrush or get along to a dentist. Stick fluorosilicic acid in everyone's water to "treat" that minority cheaply (and the rest of many us against our will) but those families will still continue to have a poor diet and a total lack of appropriate dental care. The NHS will still somehow have to fund the treatmentr of other health problems that are related to those same causal factors or shall we expect further additives to our water to cover each of those?

Cardelia

I wasn't going to post on this thread anymore but I just can't let the following pass without comment. It's almost too ridiculous for words.

tbs624 wrote: »

Let's not forget that much if the inital "science" piped up by the pro-wf lobby came from the very same era that told the population tobacco was safe - there is even clear evidence of docs and dentists promoting specific brands of ciggy.

Are you seriously saying that all science from the 1940s/50s is dodgy just because it came from the same period of time where some scientists said ciggys were safe? Seriously?

In that case, someone had better tell all those geneticists out there that Crick and Watson's determination of the structure of DNA is unreliable because it came from a time when some scientists said it was ok to smoke Marlboroughs. Not to mention organ transplants are based on dodgy 50s science - obviously no more life-saving liver transplants because the technique was developed in a time when some doctors were promoting ciggys in between operations. And you'd better drop NASA a line because it turns out that the technology required to send rockets into space is based on research from the 1940s, which is obviously dodgy too because it came from the same period of time when some dentists thought smoking was ok.

This has to be the dumbest "argument" put forward by anyone on this thread. Not only is it hugely irrelevant to the point at hand, it's a blatant and shameless attempt to scaremonger people into rejecting fluoride. You said:

[Fluoride proponents] rely more on personal denigration of those who oppose their stance than on producing good scientific argument or clear evidence.

So, the above is "good scientific argument" is it? Or perhaps it's classed as "clear evidence" that fluoride is bad just because some of the research was done in the 1950s?

I note you make no mention of the research done in the 60s, 70s, 80s etc. etc. which has produced no evidence that fluoride at a level of ca. 1 ppm is harmful to the human body. And despite all those "well qualified/eminent scientists" who are opposed to water fluoridation, there is still not one single study (preferably of good quality, though I'll take a poor one as well) which says that fluoride at a level of ca. 1 ppm in drinking water is harmful. There are no studies which show that areas of the UK with a natural water level of ca. 1 ppm fluoride suffer more adverse health effects than areas with a natural level of 0.1 ppm. And, as you've kindly pointed out, research has been done in this area for 60 years. Surely someone, somewhere, should have noticed something by now?

tbs624

Cardelia - lovely to see you back despite the fact that you still base much of your posts on personal attack and rudeness.

Cardelia wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that all science from the 1940s/50s is dodgy just because it came from the same period of time where some scientists said ciggys were safe? Seriously? ………..This has to be the dumbest "argument" put forward by anyone on this thread. Not only is it hugely irrelevant to the point at hand, it's a blatant and shameless attempt to scaremonger people into rejecting fluoride

It’s an improvement in your posting methodology to seek clarification of what others actually mean, just a shame you decided to then answer yourself. Read again and do try not to take your own interpretation, incorrectly extrapolating it, running as you go - you may trip up. It is not “hugely irrelevant” to highlight the fact that much of the early pro-wf studies came from an era with different standards or that other substances pronounced as safe at that time were subsequently proven to be anything but.

“Blatant & shameless” are good words for this Government’s attempts to dress up water fluoridation as something that is not only “safe & effective” but of benefit to all & sundry ( without the evidence to back either claim up). There’s more: blatant & shameless backroom funding of the pro-wf lobby, blatant & shameless emotional blackmail “wouldn’t you want to help the little children with their rotten teeth by saying yes to water fluoridation” , without offering the real truth behind why those kids have those levels of dental decay and the fact that it can be (a) prevented by dietary improvements & appropriate dental hygiene and (b) treated by other (specifically targeted) means

Both you and Ben (along with TS) seem to have trouble understanding why many people are not so willing to swallow the oft-spouted line that something is “safe and effective”. Not only is there still a paucity of scientific evidence in favour of water fluoridation but, way back in the thread, I offered a list of examples of drugs/products/initiatives also held up to be "safe & effective" and subsequently proved to be otherwise, and Bernard & others have raised similar points.

Have you done any research into the history of water fluoridation and its real origins or are you content merely to swallow the official line, along with the state fluoridated water? If you want flawed science from that era it’s there in abundance and some of it is used as the basis for much of pro-wf propaganda put out today.

Cardelia wrote: »

I note you make no mention of the research done in the 60s, 70s, 80s etc. etc. which has produced no evidence that fluoride at a level of ca. 1 ppm is harmful to the human body.

I think we have covered much of that debate earlier in the thread Cardelia - or do you need it to be re-iterated in another extremely long post now?

I note that you choose not to explore the finances behind the promotion of water fluoridation. I note that you have not commented on the fact that tooth eruption is delayed in areas with water fluoridation and that this is not taken into account when comparing dmft/DMFT indices? Your thoughts on fluoride’s action as an endocrine disrupter? The fluorosis issue? The wider environmental issues? The way in which fluorosilicic acid is produced, what other substances are likely to be present & the costs of safely disposing of this waste/by product if it is not tipped into the water supplies? The lost revenue from taxes if the Government were to insist that the food manufacturers and sugar producers were to be prevented from peddling cheap, poor quality tooth rotting foodstuffs? Your thoughts on a one size fits all dose for everyone, disregarding individual ifestyle/dietary factos affecting total fluoride intake? The moral and legal issues around mass-medication?

Cardelia wrote: »

And despite all those "well qualified/eminent scientists" who are opposed to water fluoridation, there is still not one single study (preferably of good quality, though I'll take a poor one as well) which says that fluoride at a level of ca. 1 ppm in drinking water is harmful. There are no studies which show that areas of the UK with a natural water level of ca. 1 ppm fluoride suffer more adverse health effects than areas with a natural level of 0.1 ppm.

There are no studies which show good reason for the whole population to be forced to have their water fluoridated and we’ve done to death the fact that the York Review highlighted the fact there are no studies which show water fluoridation to be unequivocally safe. There are, however, studies that apparently show that the topical application of fluoride is a successful form of treatment for dental decay for those who can’t get be bothered to encourage their kids to get through life with brown fizzy stuff and all manner of other sugary rubbish in their diet, nor to get them along to the dentist.

Cardelia wrote: »

And, as you've kindly pointed out, research has been done in this area for 60 years. Surely someone, somewhere, should have noticed something by now?

After all the time that has passed since the wonder F was first promoted as a way of dealing with the tooth decay of a minority, why is that less than 6% of the population have artificially fluoridated water? Why is that so many countries have either dropped the practice or never had it in the first place and are unlikely to do so in the future? Why is that where those schemes are in place many are clamouring for them to be withdrawn?

Have a look over at Ireland - an article on an upsurge in hip fracture http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6078571.ece to which Prof Vyvyan Howard, toxicologist as the University of Ulster responded:

Further to your report Doctors 'struggling to cope' with upsurge in hip fractures ( News, last week ), the republic of Ireland is the most fluoridated country in the world. There is well documented epidemiological literature associating hip and other fractures with drinking-water fluoridation. It would be most illuminating to compare the reported hip fracture rates with those in unfluoridated Northern Ireland. This finding should be yet another nail in the coffin of this unwarranted mass medicaiton. We certainly should not be extending the practice in the UK.

Professor Vyvyan Howard
Molecular Biosciences Centre, University of Ulster

There continues to be valid scientific dispute over the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation, there is dissent, and while ever that is the case the precautionary principle should be applied. It’s worth stating again that the water companies wanted an indemnity from the Government if water fluoridation was to go ahead: if the evidence for water fluoridation’s safety was so overwhelming why would they need that?

The fact is that it is utterly wrong that a whole population should be simultaneously “treated” via the public water supplies (for which they are obliged to pay), for a condition that the overwhelming majority of them do not have - a condition that can be treated by other methods.

By aiming to treat one health inequality the proponents of water fluoridation will be creating yet others - for those families who have taken care of their kids teeth who then have to be subjected to dental treatment for fluorosis, (that 1 in 8, remember?) , for those who have pre-existing medical conditions that predispose them to the side effects of water fluoridation, for those who can’t afford a reverse osmosis system on top of their water bills or for those whose Landlord won’t permit them to install one.

The fact is that some kids’ dietary issues and/or their parents poverty/education issues won’t be changed because we’re all made to pay for & drink state- fluoridated water. The causes of dental decay also create other burdens for the NHS - can we expect each one of those to be similarly addressed by cheaply dropping some other waste/by product into the water supply, thereby absolving individual parents, the junk food producers and our Government of full responsibility for their respective decisions?

Ben84

tbs624 wrote: »

:wall: Cor blimey Ben, it's really not that hard. AFIAA Bernard was using it as an example of where something is trumpeted as a safe effective answer to a "health issue" and yet subsequently turns out to have far more serious health implications for those who take it. It doesn't help the women with cancer to be told that perhaps the studies didn't state clearly enough what the risks were or that there was not enough good quality evidence at the time so the potential risks may have been played down.

I'm not finding it hard, I'm finding it irrelevant.

He could also be using as an example something like diabetes medicine, a medical product that has saved and improved millions of lives. Loudly trumpeted as safe and effective, and now decades later and millions of patients later it's turning out to be just that. However, I bet you'd protest that the safety of insulin medicine proves nothing about fluoride because it's not related in any comparative way?

If you did I'd totally agree with you (it doesn't prove anything about fluoride on the basis it's unrelated in every way), but if you can't see the break down of logic and how this angle is deeply flawed?

If the failures of some products and medical treatments can be fairly held against entirely unrelated new products, they why not assign the safety and success of past medical treatments and products to new ones as well?

As for the usefulness of older research and data, I agree with Cardelia, we use vast amounts of historical research and discovery every day in modern science and I think it's fair to say that all modern science is based on a foundation of previous science. It's not junk because it's old, that is an absurd suggestion. One of the most influential books today, still widely read and quoted is On the Origin of Species, published by Darwin about 150 years ago. We also use maths developed by Pythagoras in ancient Greece to solve modern problems like the distance between atoms in molecules.

You can throw out all the old science on a whim that allegedly a few studies said smoking was safe in the 40s (despite many references over the years I've never seen evidence these safe-smoking studies exist, the industry funded studies found it was dangerous and were actually not made public), but don't expect everyone else to follow the reasoning!

Volcano

tbs624 wrote: »

"It would be most illuminating to compare the reported hip fracture rates with those in unfluoridated Northern Ireland. This finding should be yet another nail in the coffin of this unwarranted mass medicaiton."

It would be illuminating indeed. Let's hope the research isn't carried out by Prof. Howard who apparently is already sure of the results of a study that hasn't happened yet.

Seems like his anti-fluoridation zeal has got ahead of him......

Ben84

Volcano wrote: »

It would be illuminating indeed. Let's hope the research isn't carried out by Prof. Howard who apparently is already sure of the results of a study that hasn't happened yet.

Seems like his anti-fluoridation zeal has got ahead of him......

The times article makes no mention of fluoride or Vivian Howard, so I have no idea what source is publishing the response Tbs posted.

That aside, it's a very ill informed statement from someone who is supposed to be a professional according to the comment. She doesn't have the data to support it yet, nobody has ever established how it causes any of these alleged effects, and as a professional she should know there's every chance a study wouldn't turn up anything. Not just because studies sometimes do that, but because the effect is being seen elswhere in big numbers. Hip fractures caused by osteoporosis have also been increasing greatly across Europe - and despite most European countries not adding fluoride to the water. The alleged trend in Ireland is not unique in Europe by any means.

The International Osteoporosis Foundation have a large collection of statistics on their site here:

http://www.iofbonehealth.org/facts-and-statistics.html#factsheet-category-22

We also have a culprit for the upsurge already and extensive evidence to support it - an ageing population who are living longer and comprising a greater percentage of the total population. Osteoporosis is increasing because we have more people in the world who are the typical age to develop it.

There have been huge % increases (many double digit) in recent decades all over Europe, and nearly all in countries that have no added fluoride in the water. If you scroll down further you can also see the statistics for other areas of the world, many of which also don't add any fluoride to the water either.

If she doesn't know this she's hardly ahead of the topic and in a place where she can enlighten us, while if she's choosing not to share this very relevant information she's misleading us in to seeing a very selective picture. She says fluoride + increasing osteoporosis is a clear match (so clear we can predict the outcome without doing the study!), and I'm not buying it at all. Not when the increasing trend is also so clear in countries without fluoride, and not when we have never established a mechanism by which it causes this illness, and not when we already have identified a cause with mechanism established (ageing population) and can prove it's present in all countries where osteoporosis is increasing (unlike added fluoride which is present in one small country and represents a tiny amount of the total data set).

In a similar way, people sometimes selectively pick the osteoporosis data for the US (where most people do have fluoridate water) and present it as clear evidence while ignoring the same trend is clearly evident elsewhere, the US data is in fact further proof it's ageing and not fluoride because it correlates with their average population life expectancy also. They've been drinking fluoridated water for decades, and yet osteoporosis has only increased in line with the rest of the world in more recent years as average age increased. This makes a lot of sense when you blame age and no sense at all when you blame fluoride - why the delay, and why the same effect elsewhere when the alleged cause isn't present? Any impact fluoride could have on osteoporosis in communities that have been using it long term would have hit their peak long before now and not be showing significant growth still.

The picking of two bits of data and saying "Oh, look, they kind of match when you look at them this way!" is the most simplistic and crude of methods. You need context and reason, and the suggestion it's ageing provides that on many levels. Blaming fluoride when it's such an ill fit on many aspects is illogical.

Anyway, the reality of this type of disinformation is that the real cause of the illness will not be dealt with properly if too many people blame it on something that is unrelated. Age and diet seem to be the important factors, and at least one we can do something useful about - provided we actually accept it as the most likely cause and best lifestyle change to make. All this ranting about fluoride will encourage is people to not do the things which are actually effective, and maybe stop using modern dental care products with a resulting decline in the condition of their teeth as well.

tbs624

Ben84 wrote: »

I'm not finding it hard, I'm finding it irrelevant. .

For something that you say you find irrelevant , it’s certainly keeping you going off on tangents Ben.

Ben84 wrote: »

He could also be using as an example something like diabetes medicine, a medical product that has saved and improved millions of lives. Loudly trumpeted as safe and effective, and now decades later and millions of patients later it's turning out to be just that. However, I bet you'd protest that the safety of insulin medicine proves nothing about fluoride because it's not related in any comparative way?

If you did I'd totally agree with you (it doesn't prove anything about fluoride on the basis it's unrelated in every way), but if you can't see the break down of logic and how this angle is deeply flawed?

Yes, I can clearly see the break down of your logic and it’s your understanding of others views that is flawed. You have taken something totally in isolation of its context. Look back :

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.

The argument by the pro-wf-ers in this thread has been “ its safe & effective”: the usual mantra . Despite us having gone over this part, time and time again, for many people there is a problem or two here. There is much evidence of governmental/scientific “safe & effective” tags having a very hollow ring . The fact that insulin helps diabetics does not alter that.

Insulin is only prescribed to those who have a clinical need for it rather than being added to our water supplies and diabetics have choice: they can improve their diet and if that doesn’t work then they can choose whether or not take insulin, or suffer the health consequence, ie they get to balance up the potential risk of one thing against the potential of the other. If you or your kids have tooth decay currently you can get that treated by diet, by improved dental hygiene and by topical application of fluoride but the proposal is that everyone else should be having some “treatment” alongside you, via the public water supplies, because its cheaper for the government that way. We could, of course, take the role of junk food in both tooth decay and diabetes off on another side issue

Ben84 wrote: »

As for the usefulness of older research and data, I agree with Cardelia, we use vast amounts of historical research and discovery every day in modern science and I think it's fair to say that all modern science is based on a foundation of previous science. It's not junk because it's old, that is an absurd suggestion.

Your interpretation is absurd Ben. It is not the fact of the science’s age per se, it is the fact that the methodology of those studies is flawed. You *must* know that as science advances, there has to be a honming , an improvement,a reassessment of the evidence. Some stands up better than others, and some gives a good foundation. Some doesn’t : the original “scientific studies on which the proponents of wf have pushed forward over the years were deeply flawed: the methodology simply would not stand up today. One of the studies was even overseen by a “scientist” whose other hat-wearing exercise was advising government how to avoid lawsuits from workers with health issues arising from fluoride. His studies were hardly going to highlight any negative results were they?

Ben84 wrote: »

......You can throw out all the old science on a whim that allegedly a few studies said smoking was safe in the 40s (despite many references over the years I've never seen evidence these safe-smoking studies exist, the industry funded studies found it was dangerous and were actually not made public), but don't expect everyone else to follow the reasoning!

For someone who sees himself as “scientific” you do have a habit of putting a spin on the views of others: it’s not about “whims” and its not about ”throwing out all the old science”, it’s about recognising where older science is flawed .

You mention suppression of studies on cigarette smoking and yet fail to be aware of those scientists who have found their fluoridation research sidelined and/or their job on the line (eg Phyllis Mullenix) when their results aren’t what the industry/government wish to hear?

The point that you are missing is that water fluoridation means everyone being subject to it, regardless of their own health status, regardless of their own exposure to fluoride via other sources, regardless even of whether they have a single tooth in their head and in spite of the evidence that 48% of kids would end up with fluorosis, with 1 in 8 of those in need of specific treatment (flurois =toxicity within the body)

For that very reason - because this is mass medication - proof of safety & effectiveness become more vital, and evidence should be of the absolute highest standards. The newer studies available are not (refer to the York Review again) :the original studies were flawed..

Nine years after the York Review and still no stunning new evidence or top quality research to support water fluoridation’s supposed “safety” …………

The fact is that the necessary proof is absolutely not there, so fluoride treatment of tooth decay should be limited to topical application for the minority who may have a clinical need for help because their parents fail to prevent them consuming too much sugar, too often and they fail to give guidance on basic dental hygiene

tbs624

Ben84 wrote: »

We also have a culprit for the upsurge already and extensive evidence to support it - an ageing population who are living longer and comprising a greater percentage of the total population. Osteoporosis is increasing because we have more people in the world who are the typical age to develop it.

My emphasis - that’s a tad simplistic Ben, especially for someone who is quick to flag up what he sees as other people’s poor hypotheses as in "The picking of two bits of data and saying "Oh, look, they kind of match when you look at them this way!" is the most simplistic and crude of methods"

Ben84 wrote: »

There have been huge % increases (many double digit) in recent decades all over Europe, and nearly all in countries that have no added fluoride in the water …… if she's choosing not to share this very relevant information she's misleading us in to seeing a very selective picture.

Prof Howard is male btw - a toxicologist and pathologist. Are you being selective or misleading Ben? If you are going merely on the list from your link , if we take those that look at figures over a past period we’ll see Denmark , Greece, Finland, Spain - increases ascertained over 10-14 year spans, so those figures do not equate to “many double digit” increases.( Just to add clarification for you, parts of Spain have water fluoridation, part of Finland did have it. Finland also used to have a fluoride rinsing programme at schools during the 50s, & dished out fluoride tablets in the 1970s and 1980s, dropping the dosage in the 90s when evidence clearly showed that the best form was topical.) You’ll no doubt seek a side run on this one but the point intended here is that you seem to be using the most basic of information gleaned merely from summaries/footnotes to support your theories whilst criticising the methods of others?

Ben84 wrote:

She says fluoride + increasing osteoporosis is a clear match (so clear we can predict the outcome without doing the study!), and I'm not buying it at all. Not when the increasing trend is also so clear in countries without fluoride

Your standpoint is interesting when, despite the decrease in the prevalence of dental decay in countries which don’t have water fluoridation, you clearly buy into water +fluorosilicic acid = decay problem addressed??

Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition.”

Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal

"In most European countries, where community water fluoridation has never been adopted, a substantial decline in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades, with reductions in lifetime caries experience exceeding 75%."

Pizzo G, et al. (2007). Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. Clinical Oral Investigations

Ben84 wrote: »

This makes a lot of sense when you blame age and no sense at all when you blame fluoride - why the delay, and why the same effect elsewhere when the alleged cause isn't present? Any impact fluoride could have on osteoporosis in communities that have been using it long term would have hit their peak long before now and not be showing significant growth still.

Really? I think that perhaps is your personal opinion. Fluoride is a bio-accumulator:it is stored within the body. Look more carefully at the timelines for water fluoridation and also bear in mind that, over the past few decades, people’s exposure to fluoride from all sources has increased dramatically, and continues to do so. Or are you now saying that there are areas where there is no fluoride exposure from any source?

Exposure to fluoridated water in particular appears to delay eruption of secondary teeth, and dental fluorosis is an unwelcome side effect, a clear marker (in more ways than one) of fluoride -induced toxicity. It has not been clearly established what other effects long term exposure has on the human body but while ever there is doubt, it should not be imposed on the population via the drinking water supplies.

Professionals who propose compulsory preventive measures for a whole population have a different weight of responsibility on their shoulders than those who respond to the requests of individuals for help. Previously neutral on the issue, I am now persuaded by the arguments that those who wish to take fluoride (like me) had better get it from toothpaste rather than the water supply.

Douglas Carnall, Associate Editor, British Medical Journal, writing after the publication of the York Review.

Ben84 wrote: »

All this ranting about fluoride will encourage is people to not do the things which are actually effective, and maybe stop using modern dental care products with a resulting decline in the condition of their teeth as well

For someone who regularly accuses other of being illogical that one’s an absolute corker Ben.. “the things which are actually effective” are:

1) cutting down on sugary food & diet, in terms of both quantity and frequency of consumption
2) Using a toothbrush and some toothpaste at least twice a day
3) Seeing a dentist a couple of times a year.

The earlier science - yet more flawed science- was that fluoride needed to be ingested to be effective: studies have shown that topical application is the most effective form for those who want or need it.

"Fluoride is most effective when used topically, after the teeth have erupted."

Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. BMJ 335(7622):699-702

“ the major anticaries benefit of fluoride is topical and not systemic.”

National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C.

"Since the current scientific thought is that the cariostatic activity of fluoride is mainly due to its topical effects, the need to provide systemic fluoride supplementation for caries prevention is questionable."

European Commission. (2005).The Safety of Fluorine Compounds in Oral Hygiene Products for Children Under the Age of 6 Years. European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, September 20.

That topical application is available to you now without others having to imbibe alongside you ( whilst paying for the displeasure). - toothpaste, mouthwash, varnishes are already there (in a very profitable market sector).

If the condition of people’s teeth declines it isn’t due to a lack of fluoride in the water - it’s down to their sugar-laden diet, their poor dental hygiene and the under funding of appropriate NHS dentistry provision.

Slap fluorosilicic acid in the water and people will simply assume that its okay to carry on eating & drinking rubbish (rubbish food production is another highly profitable market)

We know that the NHS is struggling : obesity (particularly kids), heart disease, type 2 diabetes are issues arising from similar dietary intake to that which causes tooth decay. Perhaps we’ll next be told that the wonder slurry can help fix those, as the next bit of “quick fix” government moneysaving?