Fluoride in tap water

geordie_joe

tbs624 wrote: »

“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.”
SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702.

I love this, how do they know it occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride?

Note the use of the words "probably" and "perhaps". They don't know why it happened, so how can they say it happened regardless of something.

tbs624

geordie_joe wrote: »

I'm like you, I only believe the bits I want to.

A key difference being that you freely admit you don’t want to consider any view other than your own before arriving at your statement of belief.

geordie_joe wrote: »

....what will you be shouting for next?

None of my post was in capitals and I never feel the need to shout when I’m discussing anything, so who is shouting?

geordie_joe wrote: »

We have to do what we can to stop those kids suffering...............and it should be in the water for those who are too young to know they need it.

Again, the kids who have the most dental decay have it because they consume too much sugar - sweets, fizzy drinks, squash, junk food, and their families don't access the appropriate dental care. If parents can't get them to clean their teeth, then they're unlikely to have much success in getting them to have tap water as their drink of choice.

geordie_joe wrote: »

I've never seen anyone on the TV that actually has any of the things you say COULD happen

:rolleyes:

geordie_joe wrote: »

I'm not of the school of “if the authorities says it’s right then it must be” I'm of the school of "it did me, and none of the others any harm, so people who say it could are just scare mongering"

:rolleyes:

geordie_joe wrote: »

There'd be no point. Telling me what might happen if I drink water with fluoride in it would be a waste of time after drinking it for 38 years and nothing happening.

:rolleyes:

GJ - I think you’ve clinched it. That’s so much more convincing than any of the academic/ medical/ dental/ chemistry/ water engineering research I’ve read for either side: maybe I’ll sign up for fluoridated water supplies straight away.

tbs624

geordie_joe wrote: »

I love this, how do they know it occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride?

Note the use of the words "probably" and "perhaps". They don't know why it happened, so how can they say it happened regardless of something.

Because, GJ ,the fall in the prevalence of dental caries has also occurred in countries where there is no artificial fluoridation of the water or use of fluoridated salt ... as the extract says.":wall:

Toothsmith

tbs624 wrote: »

[

You argue for fluoride in the water as the best way forward

I don't believe I am arguinging favour of fluoride. I am in favour of choice based on accurate facts.

What I am against though are glaring inaccuracies, and the whole of the anti-f movement is full of them.

your post at the top of the page has several things which I know nothing of, but of the bits I do know something about, the stuff you've written down (Probably from anti - f websites) is wrong.

You also say that decay is on the decline. I'm sorry, but it isn't.

In developed countries, and developing countries, it has been on the increase for most of this century.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2000/E/200004966.html

That's one short article I found about it on a quick google.

Decay rates did fall heavily after the introduction of fluoride toothpaste, but that fall has now certainly stopped, and the increase in processed and sugary food is having it's effect.

In countries where they fluoridate salt, the stuff that goes into all the processed food will be fluoridated, so just having a bit of f free stuff to shake on your chips isn't going to do much for your opt-out.

geordie_joe

tbs624 wrote: »

Because, GJ ,the fall in the prevalence of dental caries has also occurred in countries where there is no artificial fluoridation of the water or use of fluoridated salt ... as the extract says.":wall:

It only says that to you because that's what you want it to say. Me, I also look at what it doesn't say, as I know that is often just as important as what you do say.

What is the one thing they could have said to prove their point beyond all doubt?

They could have said "The percentage of the fall is even in both countries with added fluoride and those without". Thus proving that adding fluoride to the water has had no effect.

Except they can't say that because it's not true, so they say something close to that and hope you read more into it.

Suppose the rate of prevalence of dental caries has fallen by 10% in countries without added fluoride and 90% in countries with added fluoride. Averaged out thats a 50% drop across the board. Looking at it from that point of view they could say "levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades" and they would not be telling lies.

To me, the fall of the prevalence of dental caries being even in both areas is the only proof that adding fluoride to the water had no effect. Nothing else would prove it, yet it is the one thing they did not say. And the only reason I can think of for them not saying it is because it would not have been true.

Toothsmith

But decay levels are on the rise - all over!

Ephemera

Toothsmith wrote: »

Shame that after all that reading you still can't spell fluoride though!

pot...kettle?

Maybe checking your own spellings of "suppress", "Goebbels" and "detrimental" first before passing judgement on others spelling unfamiliar words? :rolleyes:

Ephemera

geordie_joe wrote: »

When I was 38.5 I moved to Dorset. Don't know about the water down here, but I do know it tastes like p*ss and you have to filter it before you can drink it. You can't put unfiltered water in the kettle either, well you can but after a week you won't use the kettle again.

Depends on where your water comes from and how it's treated.

I live in Dorset, have done almost all my life, and have no problem with the taste of tap water. We filter it at home to remove the worst of the calcium carbonate (scale) but would disagree with the 'after a week you won't use the kettle again'. It takes a few days to fur up but those of us who have lived with it just descale the kettle regularly, or rinse it out to get rid of the crusty bits. :eek:


I would be interested to know more about the research Toothsmith alludes to in his defence of flouridation. Personally the thought of putting something else in the water in addition to what already goes into it to make it potable (chlorine, sulphur dioxide, ammonium sulphate) does not sit well with me. Are we to abdicate yet more responsibility to the Government? Whose health is it anyway?

And just because they put iodine in salt doesn't make it OK to put flouride in water!

geordie_joe

Ephemera wrote: »

I live in Dorset, have done almost all my life, and have no problem with the taste of tap water.

It's a matter of taste, I brought up in the north east and the water up there tastes much better to me.

Ephemera wrote: »

We filter it at home to remove the worst of the calcium carbonate (scale) but would disagree with the 'after a week you won't use the kettle again'. It takes a few days to fur up but those of us who have lived with it just descale the kettle regularly, or rinse it out to get rid of the crusty bits. :eek:

It was just an expression, I didn't mean literally that you would never use the kettle again, just that you would have to clean it before using it again. As you say, it only takes a few days for the kettle to fur up if you don't filter the water.

Evil_Dan

As several other posters have mentioned there is evidence to suggest that fluoride does more harm than good. I quote:

As of 2005, surveys conducted by theNational Institute of Dental Reasearch in the USA between 1986 and 1987 and by the Center Of Disease Control between 1999 and 2002 are the only national sources of data concerning the prevalence of dental fluorosis.

The Center of Disease Control found a 9% higher prevalence of dental fluorosis in American children than was found in a similar survey 20 years ago. In addition, the survey provides further evidence that African Americans suffer from higher rates of fluorosis than Caucasian Americans.

The condition is more prevalent in rural areas where drinking water is derived from shallow wells or hand pumps. It is also more likely to occur in areas where the drinking water has a fluoride content of more than 1ppm (part per million), and in children who have a poor intake of calcium.

And Geordie - it does state that it could be to blame, therefore, it cannot be inserted into water supplies, if it isnt safe!