Fluoride in tap water

geordie_joe

Evil_Dan wrote: »

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

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

Well I reckon the text you quoted shoots itself in the foot in the first paragraph.

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.

It says there are only two national sources of data,

"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"

Yet it tries to prove it's point by comparing those with data from 20 years ago.

moonrakerz

I'm afraid I take most of these things with a pinch of salt - not too much though, it might be bad for me !

In the last couple of weeks alone we have had three long held "health facts" shot down in flames.

1. Drink eight glasses (litres, gallons, buckets ?) of water a day to stay healthy. It now appears that there is absolutely no basis for this claim, and in fact they can't even find where it came from in the first place. (What about if it has "added fluoride" ??)
2. Don't drink more than 21 units of booze a week (men) - this figure has now been discovered to have been pulled from a hat - again no medical foundation whatsoever.
3. Drink de-caff everything, caffeine is bad for you. Oops! - they've just discovered that caffeine prevents cholesterol sticking to your artery walls, so perhaps it isn't bad for you after all.

Just about every "health fact" that has been publicised over the last 40 years has, sooner or later been contradicted or completely dismissed as bunkum.
Best advice, treat them as bunkum from the outset - a little of what you like does you good !

Cardelia

jinnan_tonnix wrote: »

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

Oh dear :rolleyes: The F- ion by definition is fluoride. To put it simplistically, the element called fluorine (chemical symbol F) can have one electron added to it: this creates a negatively charge fluoride ion (hence F- rather than just F). The properties of the fluoride ion are identical, irrespective of how it gets into the water supply. It doesn't matter if it's calcium fluoride, sodium fluoride or sodium hexafluorosilicate, when these compounds are dissolved in water they dissociate and the properties of the F- ion are the same. Yes, the above compounds are different. But when you dissolve them in water at low concentrations, they all behave in the same way towards human beings. And none of them are toxic.

Toothsmith wrote: »

I am fiercely anti-bull.

Hear hear. And from a scientific point of view, there's been a lot of it spouted so far on this thread

tbs624 wrote: »

We perhaps need to bear in mind that scientists were wrong about cigarette smoking - didn’t some of those scientists believe that lung cancer was caused by road pollution?

Yes, it was mainly those scientists who were paid by cigarette manufacturers. And even then their research found that smoking caused cancer, it's just the cigarette companies hushed up the results and lied about it. But if you want to bring up the "scientists could be wrong" card, then how do you know the scientists who are anti-fluoridation are correct? You're quite prepared to believe the pro-fluoridation research may be wrong because it suits your point of view to do so, yet you've closed your mind to the idea that the anti-fluoridation scientists might also be wrong. So, which is it? You can't have it both ways.


There is a fairly simple and ethically acceptable test to determine whether it is likely or not that fluoride causes problems in human beings. You pick an area of the country with a naturally high fluoride concentration in the water and analyse whether or not this area has a greater amount of health problems associated with high levels of fluoride in the water than a similar area with low fluoride levels. As far as I'm aware, no such causative link has been suggested, never mind proven. So I'm still waiting for evidence to suggest that fluoride is harmful at low concentrations. And on that point, Evil_Dan - do you have a link for that quote?

geordie_joe wrote: »

I don't care who you are, and how much you say your kids clean their teeth 4 times a day. Kids don't like cleaning their teeth, and once you stop watching them they will find ways to not do it.

I couldn't agree more. You could spend billions on education - for both the kids and the parents - but if people don't want to do something (whether that be kids brushing their teeth, or parents forcing their kids to brush their teeth) then they won't.

The carefully-targeted and low-cost education plan which the pro-choice movement espouse will fall to pieces because in the real world, there are people who just won't do what you'd like them to do. It's damned inconsiderate of them I know, but unfortunately the people you're targeting are those who do not care about the welfare of their children, they don't care whether or not their children have good oral health and they don't care whether or not their children get a good start in life. So how do you help the kids of those people? Throw yet more money at the problem? It won't work. Sorry, but it won't.

geordie_joe

moonrakerz wrote: »

Just about every "health fact" that has been publicised over the last 40 years has, sooner or later been contradicted or completely dismissed as bunkum.
Best advice, treat them as bunkum from the outset - a little of what you like does you good !

Well that gets my vote as the smartest thing said in this thread.

geordie_joe

Cardelia wrote: »

There is a fairly simple and ethically acceptable test to determine whether it is likely or not that fluoride causes problems in human beings. You pick an area of the country with a naturally high fluoride concentration in the water and analyse whether or not this area has a greater amount of health problems associated with high levels of fluoride in the water than a similar area with low fluoride levels.

Northumberland, Tyne and Wear and north west Durham would be a good place to start, they have had fluoride added to the water for decades. No doubt it will be the chemical waste kind, not the "good stuff".

I think if it was causing problems someone would be shouting about it.

Cardelia wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. You could spend billions on education - for both the kids and the parents - but if people don't want to do something (whether that be kids brushing their teeth, or parents forcing their kids to brush their teeth) then they won't.

Exactly, and with kids they often do the opposite of what they are told anyway. I'm sure most kids get told not to smoke, drink, take drugs, carry knives etc. But do they listen?

Cardelia wrote: »

The carefully-targeted and low-cost education plan which the pro-choice movement espouse will fall to pieces because in the real world,

Yes but some people don't live in the real world, they live in the world where telling someone "it's their responsibility" fixes everything.

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

I am in favour of choice based on accurate facts.

Yep - me too

Toothsmith wrote: »

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

I’m with you on the first half of the sentence but I think you’re making an unjustifiable sweeping generalisation in the second half. You see, what I struggle with is that anyone with a hint of the “pro-f” about them tends to concentrate on disparaging the “anti-f” side rather than working on strengthening the “pro” argument per se. I’d also like there to be some transparency on the funding behind the “pro-f” lobby - for example, who funds their research and the glossy leaflets: we know that the BFS is funded by subscription and taxpayers money, in the form of NHS grants but it’s not independent nor does it offer links to the research done by both sides. Is the situation similar to the medical profession & the pharm companies - do dentists get some fluoride freebies at the surgery , a couple of wall clocks and a few pens? Maybe an all-expenses paid weekend “conference” to hear about the benefits of fluoridation?

Toothsmith wrote: »

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.

I’m happy to look at that one - do you have good quality specific sources for what you’re asserting, not just a quick google, in the interests of balance?

Toothsmith wrote: »

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.

And the food company big boys are not in any way involved in the push for fluoride are they? They can still reel in their profits from poor quality junk foods, stacked high with sugar, because fluoride will absolve them from any possible responsibilities they ought to have towards the wider community.

Toothsmith wrote: »

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.

We don’t all eat processed food, you know……;)

tbs624

geordie_joe wrote: »

.......with kids they often do the opposite of what they are told anyway.

But they will make an exception to that behaviour, becoming suddenly & unaccountably compliant, and drink the fluoridated tap water as they're told to won't they?

geordie_joe wrote: »

Yes but some people don't live in the real world, they live in the world where telling someone "it's their responsibility" fixes everything.

That'll be the same real world you live in then GJ, where letting the state take responsibility fixes everything......:D

tbs624

moonrakerz wrote: »

. Just about every "health fact" that has been publicised over the last 40 years has, sooner or later been contradicted or completely dismissed as bunkum.
Best advice, treat them as bunkum from the outset - a little of what you like does you good !

Presumably that's as in treaing the perceived health facts from either side of the debate as bunkum, so if you'd like a little fluoride, then by all means have some - in your personal milk supply, or by getting some drops or fluoride varnish from the community dentist. I, however, like many others, don't fancy it, so we'd like it left out of the drinking water.

moonrakerz

tbs624 wrote: »

Presumably that's as in treaing the perceived health facts from either side of the debate as bunkum, so if you'd like a little fluoride, then by all means have some - in your personal milk supply, or by getting some drops or fluoride varnish from the community dentist. I, however, like many others, don't fancy it, so we'd like it left out of the drinking water.

That isn't what I said - as you know full well ! Please do not try and twist every statement that doesn't fully support you into an outright condemnation of your attitudes, just so that you can prolong this rather pointless argument.

Personally, I would rather not see Fluoride added to the drinking water (or Folic acid to flour, etc, etc), but as some areas do actually have naturally occurring levels higher than the "added dose" and as these areas still seem to have a healthy population, I don't really see that it can do much harm. I will not be rioting in the streets over this !

If you wish to worked up about something, find something that does matter, not something as piffling as fluoride in the drinking water !

tbs624

Moornraker perhaps likes to make a statement on a public board but doesn’t welcome anyone else commenting?

“Just about every "health fact" that has been publicised over the last 40 years has, sooner or later been contradicted or completely dismissed as bunkum”.

IMO the intention of that statement was not clear and unequivocal, but open to interpretation, hence my response to it used the word “presumably”. The phrase “just about every health fact” is a woolly one : there was no clarification of what you meant by “just about” in terms of percentage of an all-encompassing “every”, or what you meant by a “health fact” , or on what specific evidence you may have based your view upon. It read as a Daily Mail-style cliche put forward as a personal opinion. (The phrase “rioting in the streets” in another Daily Mail-ism)

Most people tend not to get involved with anything they view as pointless or piffling and yet you made a choice to involve yourself in the discussion