Fluoride in tap water

Ben84

[QUOTE=tbs624;21468143 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.[/QUOTE]

And as far as I can see the best connection you've got on this is that some of the early fluoride studies happened in the same era as some other allegedly bad studies? Not even the same people, funding or anything, just the same time period. It's an extremely dubious link.

I'm unconvinced the 40s and 50s were an era of bad science or had a disproportionate number of studies since found to be flawed, but if there is some reason why this is a reasonable claim, you're still going to have to tell us why it relates directly to fluoride or a fluoride study to make it relevant? Otherwise I think it's just a distraction.

My point about insulin is why do we choose the analogies we make? Because they present the picture we want them to! You can bring out these topics like HRT to support a point, but can you also present why they're any more connected than insulin for example, which if we connected it would present another picture entirely? I maintain both are very unrelated, so neither tell us anything useful.

Also, your post contains lots of facts and figures and there is no references for any of them. Aside from lack of source, figures like almost half the population (48%) will develop fluorosis are making me feel skeptical. In Israel just about the entire population drink fluoridated water, and I never recall anyone having dental fluorosis. Certainly not half the population!

As for fluorosis means toxicity in the body, what does that actually mean? It has been said many times and you've never explained what it is, how it affects us or given as I remember any references to it? Where is the evidence that people who do have fluorosis are ill?

Ben84

tbs624 wrote: »

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??

Are you asking me or telling me what I think?

I'm not particularly supporting fluoride in tap water, it's a very inefficient way to distribute it, and I do agree people should have a choice if they want it or not, I just don't agree with you that fluoride is harmful at these levels.

The reductions in dental decay are likely to be caused by many factors, and clearly not just fluoride in tap water as areas without it are reducing too. I think we agree on that? But I'm puzzled how you're looking at much the same situation regarding osteoporosis increasing all over Europe (the figures in the link I gave you are not small) even though fluoride isn't in the water in many of these places, and you're reaching a very difference conclusion.

I'm also concerned that when we're talking about the effectiveness of fluoride you're happy to point out its absence in so many places with reducing tooth decay levels, but then when we talk about osteoporosis the fluoride is everywhere with many sources coming to mind? And all in the same post!

Ben84

tbs624 wrote: »

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)

I've found the general public remarkably more intelligent and nutritionally aware than you have it seems.

tbs624

Ben84 wrote: »

I've found the general public remarkably more intelligent and nutritionally aware than you have it seems.

It's not about "intelligence" though, is it Ben? The general public "nutritionally aware"?

A good proportion may be "aware" but the overall health of the nation says that there's an increasing number who don't take personal responsibility for the health effects of what they eat and drink, or what they give to their kids.

You have demonsrated that you don't get what the key issue is: the *whole* argument put forward by the pro water fluoridation lobby is that there is a sector of society who are so incapable of looking after the diet of their kids, of providing them with guidance on dental hygiene, of getting them along to a dentist (or even to use the community dentists via schools) that they must be helped by the state , that everyone must be made to swallow "medicine" via the public water supplies to "improve" their lot.

Follow this through - don't get these families to change their diet, don't get them to get a toothbrush/toothpaste applied, or get them to go to a dentist regularly ie address the *causes* of their dental decay, but instead find a cheap way to dose them all ( & the rest of us) with an industrial waste product because topical application of this stuff has been shown to have some effect against decay?

*Of course* these families will still drink America's favourite brown fizzy stuff, they will still put carp on their kids plates and blackcurrant juice in their kids bottles & trainer cups at bedtime, they will still not limit their sweet intake between meals. Why? Because they are being absolved of the need to take personal responsibility for themselves and their families. They are told that state- ordered water fluoridation will sort out their tooth decay. Unfortunately, we all get to share in that, whether we want to or not, in total disregard of our personal health status.

tbs624

Ben84 wrote: »

The reductions in dental decay are likely to be caused by many factors, and clearly not just fluoride in tap water as areas without it are reducing too. I think we agree on that? But I'm puzzled how you're looking at much the same situation regarding osteoporosis increasing all over Europe (the figures in the link I gave you are not small) even though fluoride isn't in the water in many of these places, and you're reaching a very difference conclusion.

Oh dear Ben , we are going round in circles here (but then I did say " 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? ")

You drew conclusions from very limited information presented in a non-homogeneous format, plus the content of brief footnotes and tried to argue that an increase in hip fractures was universal across Europe even where there is no water fluoridation, ergo "it ain't water fluoridation that's to blame"

Now, the point I was making was that if you want to follow that line of reasoning then clearly one would expect you to also follow the line of reasoning that says dental decay is decreasing in Europe even in those countries which have never had water fluoridation, ergo "it ain't water fluoridation that's improving decay".............

Ben84 wrote: »

I'm also concerned that when we're talking about the effectiveness of fluoride you're happy to point out its absence in so many places with reducing tooth decay levels, but then when we talk about osteoporosis the fluoride is everywhere with many sources coming to mind? And all in the same post!

See the paragraph above. We're going over and over the same issues Ben - fluoride being present in many forms does not help the argument for water fluoridation. It actually counts against it.

Ben84

tbs624 wrote: »

Oh dear Ben , we are going round in circles here (but then I did say " 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? ")

My theories?! :rotfl: We're not supposed to be making this up ourselves! I can't take any credit for the research and study that have put together the evidence of how and why ageing causes osteoporosis, I just believe it because it's a clear and well put together reasoning. It's pretty much a universal accepted idea too. Regardless of personal opinion, it shouldn't need introduction that ageing is widely believed to be the cause, and that it has plenty of evidence supporting it.

tbs624 wrote: »

You drew conclusions from very limited information presented in a non-homogeneous format, plus the content of brief footnotes and tried to argue that an increase in hip fractures was universal across Europe even where there is no water fluoridation, ergo "it ain't water fluoridation that's to blame"

Limited information, non-homogeneous format? You got a link to a well established organisation, which is a lot more than you've provided to support your claim that almost half the population will develop fluorosis if fluoride is added to the water. In fact, you didn't attach those figures to anything and they still sound extremely far fetched to me.

Anyway, you don't accept that osteoporosis is increasing greatly in Europe?

tbs624 wrote: »

Now, the point I was making was that if you want to follow that line of reasoning then clearly one would expect you to also follow the line of reasoning that says dental decay is decreasing in Europe even in those countries which have never had water fluoridation, ergo "it ain't water fluoridation that's improving decay".............

I did say that, quite clearly in my post if you had read it.

tbs624 wrote: »

See the paragraph above. We're going over and over the same issues Ben - fluoride being present in many forms does not help the argument for water fluoridation. It actually counts against it.

I'm talking about your introducing the idea that fluoride is in tablets and rinses that were handed out decades ago. You're not looking to find the cause of osteoporosis, you're looking to put fluoride in to the picture no matter how badly it fits.

The twist of this is that you've managed to shoe horn fluoride in to the picture when it's connected to an illness, but are happy to accept there wasn't any added fluoride around when tooth decay improved.

tbs624

Ben84 wrote: »

My theories?! :rotfl:We're not supposed to be making this up ourselves! I can't take any credit for the research and study that have put together the evidence of how and why ageing causes osteoporosis, I just believe it because it's a clear and well put together reasoning. It's pretty much a universal accepted idea too. Regardless of personal opinion, it shouldn't need introduction that ageing is widely believed to be the cause, and that it has plenty of evidence supporting it.

It would help if you actually checked your own understanding of other people's related posts Ben, instead of repeatedly misreading and misinterpreting: to that extent you are making things up yourself. To help you:

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.

My response was:

tbs624 wrote: »

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?

I am responding specifically there to your comment about time spans , potential impact, peak and growth, ie, your theory. No one has said that osteoporosis is not an age-related condition: it is, however, also true to say that other factors are involved, which may or may not include the increase in fluoride exposure in all its many forms.

Ben84 wrote: »

Limited information, non-homogeneous format? You got a link to a well established organisation....,

You took your information from footnotes and summaries on that page - ie,you used information in a limited form - which had figures expressed in different formats, including some references to projections , some references to current/previous figures, -ie, non-homogeneous format. You also flagged up "countries that don't have fluoridated water" but failed to mention that they had done in the past or the possibility of other fluoride exposure. You referred to “double figures" but didn’t make it clear that the figures were in fact expressed as a total % across a 10 -14 year timespan. All this is of course a side issue but it demonstrates that you major in blather, whilst demanding evidence of a higher level from those who have a different view to your own.

Ben84 wrote: »

... which is a lot more than you've provided to support your claim that almost half the population will develop fluorosis if fluoride is added to the water. In fact, you didn't attach those figures to anything and they still sound extremely far fetched to me.

Okay, here you provide yet more evidence of the shallowness of your personal "research" and understanding Ben. Anyone who claims to have checked out the arguments on both sides of the water fluoridation debate would be familiar with that figure , coming, as it does, from a seminal UK review of the research around water fluoridation . The figures may sound “far fetched” to you or, as you said previously, make you “skeptical”(sic) but the source for that figure is further back in this very thread, in one of my previous posts, and is freely available elsewhere.

tbs624 wrote: »

See the paragraph above. We're going over and over the same issues Ben - fluoride being present in many forms does not help the argument for water fluoridation. It actually counts against it.

Ben84 wrote: »

... I'm talking about your introducing the idea that fluoride is in tablets and rinses that were handed out decades ago. You're not looking to find the cause of osteoporosis, you're looking to put fluoride in to the picture no matter how badly it fits..

Your inconsistent train of thought is quite amusing: I posted a link to an area of Irish concern over potential links to osteoporosis and I commented on your non-factual follow-up assertions. You like to “ talk the scientific talk” and yet come up with bland statements to exclude fluoride when the figures to which you referred covered countries that had previously had water fluoridation/currently had it in parts or had used other sources of fluoride: all this whilst describing Prof Howard as “misleading”?

Ben84 wrote: »

... The twist of this is that you've managed to shoe horn fluoride in to the picture when it's connected to an illness, but are happy to accept there wasn't any added fluoride around when tooth decay improved.

Ben, Ben - you’re clearly struggling, what was one of your previous comments? Ah yes,….

Ben84 wrote: »

Are you asking me or telling me what I think?

You will corkscrew yourself into the ground shortly : I pulled you up on your very own one-sided thinking around this one in posts 452 and 457. It’s acknowledged that some of the improvement in the tooth decay figures may be down to the use of fluoridated toothpaste and/or mouthwashes . (Topical, remember = more effective for tooth decay)You, however, presented a skewed reasoning.

Fact - fluoride is stored in bones and teeth - it delays the eruption of secondary dentition and it has the capacity to mark, to damage teeth and evidences itself though fluorosis. It therefore makes sense to many who have a scientific/ medical background to give due consideration to what possible damage may be done to the bones by long term exposure to fluoridated water (in addition to all the other sources of fluoride) That’s not about me trying to ” shoehorn fluoride in” - others more knowledgeable/more highly qualified than I am were there well before me. I merely provided a link to an area of Irish concern and responded to your poorly presented assertions on osteoporosis.

Legitimate health concerns *have* been raised about water fluoridation, many of them by medical, dental, and science professionals, but they have not been adequately addressed. It’s not only on potential personal health costs that people need to have unbiased information, it’s on the potential costs to their personal income. Unfortunately, the information that is put out by “independent” research groups and which is presented to the public via sham "consultations" is so far from unbiased that it’s a joke - a deeply unfunny one. Ask those who live in Southampton............

The message that comes across is" pay your contribution towards the NHS, pay your water bills( because you have to) but if you don’t want to consume fluoride via that same water supply then tough”- your only option is to install an expensive reverse osmosis system or sink your own borehole. And of course that’s not taking into account the fact that you’re lumbered with the “halo effect” from mass water fluoridation…………..

Do feel free to swallow as much extra fluoride as you would like but don’t try to present water fluoridation as a an efficient , safe method of equitably addressing the dental decay problems of a minority. It quite simply is not.

IIRC elsewhere you have posted that as a former smoker you use bleaching strips on your own teeth so you clearly have different views to those who prefer to limit their exposure to substances that may create new health problems or exacerbate pre-existing ones. Presumably, if there is something that can be added to the water to help people like you with self-induced discolouration of their teeth then we should consider dosing everyone with that too?

Ben84

tbs624 wrote: »

It would help if you actually checked your own understanding of other people's related posts Ben, instead of repeatedly misreading and misinterpreting: to that extent you are making things up yourself. To help you:
My response was:
I am responding specifically there to your comment about time spans , potential impact, peak and growth, ie, your theory. No one has said that osteoporosis is not an age-related condition: it is, however, also true to say that other factors are involved, which may or may not include the increase in fluoride exposure in all its many forms.
You took your information from footnotes and summaries on that page - ie,you used information in a limited form - which had figures expressed in different formats, including some references to projections , some references to current/previous figures, -ie, non-homogeneous format. You also flagged up "countries that don't have fluoridated water" but failed to mention that they had done in the past or the possibility of other fluoride exposure. You referred to “double figures" but didn’t make it clear that the figures were in fact expressed as a total % across a 10 -14 year timespan. All this is of course a side issue but it demonstrates that you major in blather, whilst demanding evidence of a higher level from those who have a different view to your own.
Okay, here you provide yet more evidence of the shallowness of your personal "research" and understanding Ben. Anyone who claims to have checked out the arguments on both sides of the water fluoridation debate would be familiar with that figure , coming, as it does, from a seminal UK review of the research around water fluoridation . The figures may sound “far fetched” to you or, as you said previously, make you “skeptical”(sic) but the source for that figure is further back in this very thread, in one of my previous posts, and is freely available elsewhere.



Your inconsistent train of thought is quite amusing: I posted a link to an area of Irish concern over potential links to osteoporosis and I commented on your non-factual follow-up assertions. You like to “ talk the scientific talk” and yet come up with bland statements to exclude fluoride when the figures to which you referred covered countries that had previously had water fluoridation/currently had it in parts or had used other sources of fluoride: all this whilst describing Prof Howard as “misleading”?

Ben, Ben - you’re clearly struggling, what was one of your previous comments? Ah yes,…. You will corkscrew yourself into the ground shortly : I pulled you up on your very own one-sided thinking around this one in posts 452 and 457. It’s acknowledged that some of the improvement in the tooth decay figures may be down to the use of fluoridated toothpaste and/or mouthwashes . (Topical, remember = more effective for tooth decay)You, however, presented a skewed reasoning.

Fact - fluoride is stored in bones and teeth - it delays the eruption of secondary dentition and it has the capacity to mark, to damage teeth and evidences itself though fluorosis. It therefore makes sense to many who have a scientific/ medical background to give due consideration to what possible damage may be done to the bones by long term exposure to fluoridated water (in addition to all the other sources of fluoride) That’s not about me trying to ” shoehorn fluoride in” - others more knowledgeable/more highly qualified than I am were there well before me. I merely provided a link to an area of Irish concern and responded to your poorly presented assertions on osteoporosis.

Legitimate health concerns *have* been raised about water fluoridation, many of them by medical, dental, and science professionals, but they have not been adequately addressed. It’s not only on potential personal health costs that people need to have unbiased information, it’s on the potential costs to their personal income. Unfortunately, the information that is put out by “independent” research groups and which is presented to the public via sham "consultations" is so far from unbiased that it’s a joke - a deeply unfunny one. Ask those who live in Southampton............

The message that comes across is" pay your contribution towards the NHS, pay your water bills( because you have to) but if you don’t want to consume fluoride via that same water supply then tough”- your only option is to install an expensive reverse osmosis system or sink your own borehole. And of course that’s not taking into account the fact that you’re lumbered with the “halo effect” from mass water fluoridation…………..

Do feel free to swallow as much extra fluoride as you would like but don’t try to present water fluoridation as a an efficient , safe method of equitably addressing the dental decay problems of a minority. It quite simply is not.

IIRC elsewhere you have posted that as a former smoker you use bleaching strips on your own teeth so you clearly have different views to those who prefer to limit their exposure to substances that may create new health problems or exacerbate pre-existing ones. Presumably, if there is something that can be added to the water to help people like you with self-induced discolouration of their teeth then we should consider dosing everyone with that too?

This thread isn't supposed to be about me or my other unrelated posts in other threads. The original subject was are fluoride ions unhealthy. My posts in other threads aren't going to tell us much about that because I wasn't talking about fluoride in them, but if anyone wants to read them for any reason they can click on my profile button and look at my other posts in their own threads.

If you believe I'm arguing with you personally rather than about fluoride. I'm not, and never have felt like I was. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding as English is not my first language, and you might be interpreting some of my humour differently also. I'm genuinely amused you seemed to be saying I had come up with the ageing link by myself! And I was actually questioning if you were asking or telling me what I'm thinking, because your sentence was a statement with a question mark and wasn't clear.

Anyway, I'm sorry if you have been given the impression it was a personal argument. It isn't, and I'm not going to take part in one as I really wouldn't enjoy it and it wouldn't be useful to anyone who might read it.

Ben84

tbs624 wrote: »

I am responding specifically there to your comment about time spans , potential impact, peak and growth, ie, your theory. No one has said that osteoporosis is not an age-related condition: it is, however, also true to say that other factors are involved, which may or may not include the increase in fluoride exposure in all its many forms.

But do you really agree with the comment you posted that the evidence it's being caused by fluoride is already so clear we can predict it now with very good certainty without even doing a study on the subjects.

Suggesting that we can predict the outcome of something that is clearly also (maybe entirely) caused by ageing, diet, exercise and a few other lesser factors, all of which vary greatly between people and populations is unreasonable. The figures for human studies need to be adjusted a lot, and then the results shift significantly to show very different pictures.

Apologies for my amusement at the suggestion, but if you'd ever been involved with a study you'd find the suggestion we can predict their outcome just like that as strange as suggestion we could throw a book and expect it to land open at the page we're looking for.

tbs624 wrote: »

You took your information from footnotes and summaries on that page - ie,you used information in a limited form - which had figures expressed in different formats, including some references to projections , some references to current/previous figures, -ie, non-homogeneous format. You also flagged up "countries that don't have fluoridated water" but failed to mention that they had done in the past or the possibility of other fluoride exposure. You referred to “double figures" but didn’t make it clear that the figures were in fact expressed as a total % across a 10 -14 year timespan. All this is of course a side issue but it demonstrates that you major in blather, whilst demanding evidence of a higher level from those who have a different view to your own.

In the same sentence as saying double digit increases I used the word 'decades'. As for the link, it's not the best, but it shows what I'm talking about just fine. And you got a link, which leads on to:

tbs624 wrote: »

Okay, here you provide yet more evidence of the shallowness of your personal "research" and understanding Ben. Anyone who claims to have checked out the arguments on both sides of the water fluoridation debate would be familiar with that figure , coming, as it does, from a seminal UK review of the research around water fluoridation . The figures may sound “far fetched” to you or, as you said previously, make you “skeptical”(sic) but the source for that figure is further back in this very thread, in one of my previous posts, and is freely available elsewhere.

Maybe I've been reading rather different sources to you on all this. Starting with a paper from the World Health Organisation,

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water/en/

On page 42 they mention the prevalence of dental fluorosis in areas with fluoride at 1 ppm in the water, which is the level it would be increased to in areas where it's added. About 20% had fluorosis, but they also explain that it is not severe dental fluorsis, in fact not particularly visible even to the individuals who have it.

Your suggestion almost 50% will develop fluorosis is a big jump from this figure, and also you have not told us anything about the severity of this predicted fluorosis either.

Anyway, mild dental fluorosis is not a medical problem, it's quite harmless and chances are millions of people have it without knowing they have it. The WHO figures were collected from areas where the fluoride was naturally occuring at 1ppm, so you could conclude it's a benign condition that can occur naturally. The upside for these people is that their teeth suffer less decay, and this effect is what fluoride in toothpaste and water is reproducing.

tbs624 wrote: »

Fact - fluoride is stored in bones and teeth - it delays the eruption of secondary dentition and it has the capacity to mark, to damage teeth and evidences itself though fluorosis. It therefore makes sense to many who have a scientific/ medical background to give due consideration to what possible damage may be done to the bones by long term exposure to fluoridated water (in addition to all the other sources of fluoride)

I really like the WHO paper I've linked to, because it's not ignoring anything, it's well considered on all the important points.

They start by addressing what it is and where it's found, then move in to the health effects, and there's none of this 'anodyne language' or the shifty looking man from the mintydent mouthwash company hovering around, they tell us straight out that fluoride causes a whole load of illnesses when you consume significantly excessive amounts of it for long periods of time. However, at lower levels the negative effects are not present and it seems from all evidence to do nothing more than reduce tooth decay. This is their conclusion, and the conclusion of many other health organisations and governments.

It has been suggested that the amount of fluoride in our diet varies a lot naturally, which I agree with, but also that this has not been adequately addressed and I don't agree with that claim. It is discussed in many sources, including this one. Between page 19-31 they have gathered data on food types from all over the world, and throughout the text quantify and consider all sources of fluoride. For example, Chinese cooking coal was found to contain high fluoride levels that get in to their food, they have really dug in to the topic of sources and calculated just how much people are consuming from all sources. They have a good understanding of how much we're consuming (with and without added fluoride).

It's from this data that they've proposed the 1.5ppm maximum upper limit, which by all accounts seems to be very conservative. Many areas are naturally far about this level and without apparent adverse effects.

WHO also go on to discuss the importance and methods of removing excessive fluroide from the water supplies. Nobody is suggesting we should overdose on the stuff. They maintain at 1ppm it's harmless and beneficial to teeth, and this is supported in the evidence they found.

So, the adverse effects do not seem relevant when we consume it in the safe amounts, and that sentence can be said about anything I can think of. Reminding us of the effects of overdosing on fluoride is no more helpful that telling someone who drinks one or two glasses of wine a week that alcohol causes liver failure. It's just not relevant when you're not overdosing, and the gap between 1ppm and the levels that cause us to consume unhealthy amounts of fluoride are a significant leap. Even someone who really, really likes drinking tap water isn't going to end up drinking too much when you look at the numbers.

tbs624 wrote: »

Legitimate health concerns *have* been raised about water fluoridation, many of them by medical, dental, and science professionals, but they have not been adequately addressed.

I think they have. I can find more information and study on fluoride than many other things we consume, and none of it's telling me that 1ppm is unhealthy. The World Health Organisation, the US and other countries, the FDA and many other well informed groups have reached the same conclusion on this.

We've tested fluoride plenty, it's not like the lottery, you don't keep testing until you get the result you're looking for. If the study was good and there's no further suggestion it's linked then it's time to move on.

tbs624 wrote: »

It’s not only on potential personal health costs that people need to have unbiased information, it’s on the potential costs to their personal income. Unfortunately, the information that is put out by “independent” research groups and which is presented to the public via sham "consultations" is so far from unbiased that it’s a joke - a deeply unfunny one. Ask those who live in Southampton............

I can agree with that, but it doesn't directly answer the question. I'm exploring if fluoride ions unhealthy for us in these amounts.

tbs624 wrote: »

The message that comes across is" pay your contribution towards the NHS, pay your water bills( because you have to) but if you don’t want to consume fluoride via that same water supply then tough”- your only option is to install an expensive reverse osmosis system or sink your own borehole. And of course that’s not taking into account the fact that you’re lumbered with the “halo effect” from mass water fluoridation…………..

Do feel free to swallow as much extra fluoride as you would like but don’t try to present water fluoridation as a an efficient , safe method of equitably addressing the dental decay problems of a minority. It quite simply is not.

It's not me focusing on the minority, 'those people who eat too much junk food' as you described them. Fluoride in some form, I think dental products like toothpaste are most fair and effective, reduce tooth decay for everyone. They're not just for people who eat junk.

tbs624 wrote: »

IIRC elsewhere you have posted that as a former smoker you use bleaching strips on your own teeth so you clearly have different views to those who prefer to limit their exposure to substances that may create new health problems or exacerbate pre-existing ones. Presumably, if there is something that can be added to the water to help people like you with self-induced discolouration of their teeth then we should consider dosing everyone with that too?

I really think you're losing the point entirely here. Nobody has to justify their personal choices. However, I would like to add that I never said I bleached my teeth to remove cigarette stains. You've added that bit.

Anyway, I'm done with fluoride and don't expect to post any more about it.

BernardM

Ben84 wrote: »

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.

Maybe you should read more logical, truthful articles written here on the subject.

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

Especially anyone who may have unfortunately heard Radio4 yesterday on the subject.