Fluoride in tap water

jh79

tootsy70 wrote: »

Not its not

Your friends on fluoride alert disagree they call it "natural" fluoride.

jh79

Slugs wrote: »

Right, so we have both sides of the fence here. I'd like to try a little project or research study, perhaps one of you fine gentlemen or ladies would be interested in helping me do this.

I want to compare a country that flouridates and one that doesn't. Preferably two that are equal in size, population and with an equal enough population density, GDP per capita, level of recession etc. Next, I would like to compare frequency of dental issues of which Fluoride is meant to contribute, i.e. cavities, etc. I would then like to compare historical data of the flouridated country and find out can we attribute the increase in dental health specifically to the fluoridation of the water supply or are other factors contributory? For example, and increase in dental hygiene among children, dietary changes etc.

I'm not a dental expert, I know next to nothing on the topic as most of you do. I'm also against the idea of water fluoridation, though I'm open on the topic if the evidence stands to light.

So, any takers?

The results would only be of minor interest given the number of variables. You would need to throw in a few animal studies, propose a direct link to certain diseases and by what mechanism the fluoride causes the disease. Otherwise it is as useful as those studies that appear in the daily mail every few days eg red wine is good for you, a few days later it is bad for you.

Animal studies were carried out by the No side. The results didn't go the way they hoped. Don't think any have been done since. Strange that!

Sparticle

tootsy70 wrote: »

Not its not

Yes it is. Many rocks contain the odd fluoride mineral and these minerals dissolve to produce fluoride ions which are added to the menagerie of ions in water.

Flourine is in our teeth and bones. The body needs small amounts of it.

Slugs

There are always numerous variables, which should be borne in mind when looking at ANY scientific study. Regardless, I'd still like to see what can be done, instead of flinging credibility mud at one another on a forum.

jh79

Slugs wrote: »

There are always numerous variables, which should be borne in mind when looking at ANY scientific study. Regardless, I'd still like to see what can be done, instead of flinging credibility mud at one another on a forum.

It has been done by Declan Waugh to some degree. Didn't cause much of a stir given all the faults with the study.

bobafettucine

whydave wrote: »

Please note I am a member of the 'public' and it is my 'opinion' that I don't want to pay to have a waste product add to my water supply and yes I have written to my local TD.

The fluoride in Irish water is not a waste product so you are grand there.

bobafettucine

tootsy70 wrote: »

IMO, the human body wasnt designed to put this sh1te through its system. The stuff is poison and the sooner we get rid of it, the better.

The human body was not designed.

The human body is perfectly capable of dealing with fluoride at the levels in Irish water.

bobafettucine

FREETV wrote: »

She can argue as much as she likes but the fact is that the fluoride added to the water is not naturally occurring fluoride, it is an industrial waste product usually from the steel/Iron and aluminium industry and phosphate fertilisers, so therefore is highly toxic. They use scrubbers to collect this crap to try to stop pollution escaping from the massive chimney pots. http://mbm.net.au/health/antibiotics.htm

Enough said. :mad:

This is fairly representative of the complete nonsense being spouted by the anti-fluoride/science/logic campaigns.

1. There is no difference between artificial and natural fluorides. The fluoride used in Ireland is fluorosilicic acid. When added to water it releases fluorine ions into the water. It is these fluorine ions that actually reach our taps, not the fluoride itself. The fluorine atoms in the fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluoride, calcium fluoride etc etc are all identical and were formed inside stars (by nature).

2. The fluorosilicic acid used in Irish fluoridation is made specifically as a water treatment chemical and has nothing to do with the aluminium or steel/iron industries. This is a "fact" that comes from a US where they do (or at least, used to) use fluorides produced by those industries. That being said, if the fluoride is pure enough, it makes zero difference where it comes from.

3. Just because something is the by-product of an industrial process, it does not follow that it is toxic. Some by-products are and some aren't.

whydave

bobafettucine wrote: »

The fluoride in Irish water is not a waste product so you are grand there.

Well that makes it all okay (stranger on the internet) !

Slugs

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_846.pdf

What I'm picking up here is that there's a sense that topical fluoride is beneficial, particularly where Fluoride is applied directly to the cavity. Fair enough... If we're ingesting the ****ing thing, how does that help?

bobafettucine

whydave wrote: »

Well that makes it all okay (stranger on the internet) !

http://www.dohc.ie/other_health_issues/dental_research/evaluation.pdf?direct=1

Page 65

jh79

Slugs wrote: »

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_846.pdf

What I'm picking up here is that there's a sense that topical fluoride is beneficial, particularly where Fluoride is applied directly to the cavity. Fair enough... If we're ingesting the ****ing thing, how does that help?

A small constant exposure having the same effect as an instant high dose topically applied.

bobafettucine

Slugs wrote: »

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_846.pdf

What I'm picking up here is that there's a sense that topical fluoride is beneficial, particularly where Fluoride is applied directly to the cavity. Fair enough... If we're ingesting the ****ing thing, how does that help?

Ingested fluoride is present in saliva, providing the topical benefit.
Ingested fluoride is incorporated into the structure of teeth as they develop initially. Fluoride in tooth enamel means that the teeth are more resistant to acid and damage from plaque organisms.

Slugs

Albatross Ltd. New Ross, County Wexford... They produce Fertilizer: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Ross

Why is there no mention of the name of the company in Spain that supplies the Hydrofluosilicic acid?

and @ jh79 - Again, the constant exposure seems to relate only to topical application, there is no clarification on whether ingestion is also effective. If I'm wrong, please point out.

Slugs

bobafettucine wrote: »

Ingested fluoride is present in saliva, providing the topical benefit.
Ingested fluoride is incorporated into the structure of teeth as they develop initially. Fluoride in tooth enamel means that the teeth are more resistant to acid and damage from plaque organisms.

Page No.?

jh79

Slugs wrote: »

Albatross Ltd. New Ross, County Wexford... They produce Fertilizer: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Ross

Why is there no mention of the name of the company in Spain that supplies the Hydrofluosilicic acid?

and @ jh79 - Again, the constant exposure seems to relate only to topical application, there is no clarification on whether ingestion is also effective. If I'm wrong, please point out.

The same way mouthwash works, it has to mix with your saliva and makes contact with your teeth as you drink it. It is proven to reduce cavities when added to the water supply.

Don't worry about where tbe fluoride comes from it's all the same in the end. This is only highlighted by websites who are trying to frighten people who don't understand how chemistry works.

Slugs

jh79 wrote: »

The same way mouthwash works, it has to mix with your saliva and makes contact with your teeth as you drink it. It is proven to reduce cavities when added to the water supply.

But we don't drink Mouthwash. In fact, it's a rinse and repeat job. Furthermore, I thought the whole purpose of rinsing out your mouth with water afterwards was to remove any excess mouthwash in your mouth.

Could you please give me a study that shows it is beneficial when added to the water supply? I'm only finding evidence to support its topical application

Don't worry about where tbe fluoride comes from it's all the same in the end. This is only highlighted by websites who are trying to frighten people who don't understand how chemistry works.

It's enough of a point that the report felt it necessary to mention it. It doesn't mention the name of the company? Tinfoil hat bull**** aside, why is the company's name not mentioned?

http://www.dohc.ie/other_health_issues/dental_research/evaluation.pdf?direct=1 (P. 65) wrote:

Hydrofluosilicic acid is sourced from a company in Bilboa, Spain. It is not a by-product
of any industrial process.

bobafettucine

Slugs wrote: »

Page No.?

Try the York Report.
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/summary.pdf

"The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean change in dmft/DMFT score. The studies were of moderate quality (level , but of limited quantity. The degree to which caries is reduced, however, is not clear from the data available. The range of the mean difference in the proportion (%) of caries-free children is -5.0 to 64%, with a median of 14.6% (interquartile range 5.05, 22.1%). The range of mean change in dmft/DMFT score was from 0.5 to 4.4, median 2.25 teeth (interquartile range 1.28, 3.63 teeth). It is estimated that a median of six people need to receive fluoridated water for one extra person to be caries-free (interquartile range of study NNTs 4, 9). The best available
evidence from studies following withdrawal of water fluoridation indicates that caries prevalence increases, approaching the level of the low fluoride group."

Brief summary: The current evidence suggests that it works.

Slugs

bobafettucine wrote: »

Try the York Report.
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/summary.pdf

"The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean change in dmft/DMFT score. The studies were of moderate quality (level , but of limited quantity. The degree to which caries is reduced, however, is not clear from the data available. The range of the mean difference in the proportion (%) of caries-free children is -5.0 to 64%, with a median of 14.6% (interquartile range 5.05, 22.1%). The range of mean change in dmft/DMFT score was from 0.5 to 4.4, median 2.25 teeth (interquartile range 1.28, 3.63 teeth). It is estimated that a median of six people need to receive fluoridated water for one extra person to be caries-free (interquartile range of study NNTs 4, 9). The best available
evidence from studies following withdrawal of water fluoridation indicates that caries prevalence increases, approaching the level of the low fluoride group."

Brief summary: The current evidence suggests that it works.

Any indication of the studies used in that report? I'd like a list.

bobafettucine

Slugs wrote: »

It's enough of a point that the report felt it necessary to mention it. It doesn't mention the name of the company? Tinfoil hat bull**** aside, why is the company's name not mentioned?

Tinfoil hat BS aside, it is most likely for commercially-sensitive reasons. I don't know. Maybe you could find out through FoI.
The supplier to the Irish state is (at least, it was) Albatros in New Ross. The company that actually produces the stuff is in Bilbao.

Slugs

What commercially sensitive reasons can we come up with for that? And FoI?

bobafettucine

Slugs wrote: »

Any indication of the studies used in that report? I'd like a list.

Yep, lots of indications of all of the studies used in that report. Funnily enough, they are listed in the report.

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluores.htm

Spoonfeeding over.

bobafettucine

Slugs wrote: »

What commercially sensitive reasons can we come up with for that? And FoI?

Because the irish state is not a customer of the company in Bilbao, and maybe Albatros didn't want that information given out because it would make it easier for another company to steal their business. This really should not require an explanation though.

FoI = Freedom Of Information.
You could try requesting the information under the freedom of information act, but my guess is you would run up against the same problems of commercial confidentiality.

Slugs

bobafettucine wrote: »

Because the irish state is not a customer of the company in Bilbao, and maybe Albatros didn't want that information given out because it would make it easier for another company to steal their business. This really should not require an explanation though.

FoI = Freedom Of Information.
You could try requesting the information under the freedom of information act, but my guess is you would run up against the same problems of commercial confidentiality.

It really should require an explanation. Why would you not want people to know who your suppliers are? And if it became cheaper for the Irish government to purchase directly from the company in Bilbao rather than a middle-man like Albatros, should that option not be pursued? We are in a recession after all. And the WHO 2003 paper explains the high cost of fluoridation should encourage countries to look for the cheapest ways possible. If the name of the company is not disclosed in the report for commercial confidentiality reasons, that should be outlined.

jh79

@slugs

What difference does the source off the fluoride make? It has no implications regarding it's safety.

Dental association websites have the studies showing the benefits, it is supported by both the us and irish associations.

Our water contains the optimal ppm to improve dental health without compromising our health. As supported my the majority of real health practitioners.

bobafettucine

Slugs wrote: »

It really should require an explanation. Why would you not want people to know who your suppliers are? And if it became cheaper for the Irish government to purchase directly from the company in Bilbao rather than a middle-man like Albatros, should that option not be pursued? We are in a recession after all. And the WHO 2003 paper explains the high cost of fluoridation should encourage countries to look for the cheapest ways possible. If the name of the company is not disclosed in the report for commercial confidentiality reasons, that should be outlined.

By all means, work away! Saving the state a couple of quid would be a very good thing to do.

But, the fact that this information is not freely given out is no indication that anything underhanded is going on, it is standard practice in most industries.
I never said that it is in our interest for this information to be confidential. I said that it was in Albatros' interest to have this information confidential and as their customer, the state has certain legal obligations as well.

On the subject being discussed, however, it has no bearing whatsoever.

stevejazzx

Hard to be pro Floride or believe in safe level use when most of Europe has banned the process or simply doesn't use it.
Have their views changed recently? Apparently no real evidence to provide indication of safe use for long periods even at these low levels according to statements issues by countries not using floridation?

And in countries who do do use it who regulates these levels and how exactly do they do it?

Doesn't it seem reasonable that alternative methods for caring for teeth and cavities are now well established and easily available.
With so much of europe not using Floridation can we see some statistics on cavity rates between those countries using floride and those not - surely by now some clear data must be available.
If this data is not absolutely convincing should't the question be why is it necessary to add floride to water when Countries without it are not experiencing difficulties.


Steve

King Mob

stevejazzx wrote: »

Hard to be pro Floride or believe in safe level use when most of Europe has banned the process or simply doesn't use it.
....
If this data is not absolutely convincing should't the question be why is it necessary to add floride to water when Countries without it are not experiencing difficulties.

Fluoridation is not banned in any country.

Why does the anti fluoridation crowd need to keep repeating lies like that to convince people?

Papers showing both the effectiveness of fluoridation and it's safety in the long term have already been provided.
No papers showing harm at the levels present in drinking water have been provided

Flabbaflub

King Mob wrote: »

Fluoridation is not banned in any country.

Why does the anti fluoridation crowd need to keep repeating lies like that to convince people?

Most Countries Reject Water Fluoridation


Statements from European and other Health, Water, & Environment
Authorities on Water Fluoridation

Austria:


“Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.”
(M. Eisenhut, Head of Wate
r
Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas
-
und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A
-
1015 Wien, Austria,
February 17, 2000).


Belgium:


“This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The
main reaso
n for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver
medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
(Chr. Legros, Directeur,
Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 20
00)
.


China:


Fluoridation is banned: “not allowed”


Naturally high fluoride levels in water are a serious problem in China.


“Bartram said there were many other ‘silent threats,’ including excessive fluoride in the water supply in China,
India and the Rif
t Valley in Africa. In China alone, 30 million people suffer crippling skeletal fluorosis.”
(Jamie
Bartram, Coordinator of the WHO's Water, Sanitation and Health Program, March 22, 2002)


The Chinese government now considers any water supply containing ove
r 1 ppm fluoride a risk for skeletal
fluorosis.
(Bo Z, et al. (2003). Distribution and risk assessment of fluoride in drinking water in the West Plain
region of Jilin Province, China.
Environmental Geochemistry and Health
25: 421
-
431.)


In China, the World
Health Organization has estimated that 2.7 million people have the crippling form of
skeletal fluorosis.


Czech Republic:


“Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech
Republic. Although flu
oridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration
because this form of supplementation is considered:

•

uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for
hygiene et
c. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for
drinking (underground water usually with fluor)

•

unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)

•

unethical (“forced medication”)

•

toxicologically a
nd physiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of
supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health
-
threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of
fluor in water into non biological active
forms of fluor.”
(Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999).


Denmark:


“We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic
fluori
des have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been
fluoridated.”
(Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999).



Finland:


“We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water
. There are better ways of providing the fluoride
our teeth need.”
(Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000).


“Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuo
pio,
situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population).
Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual
grounds for the resistance p
resented in this context were an individual’s right to drinking water without
additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of “force
-
feeding” was
also mentioned.


Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finl
and but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to
practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water.”
(Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland,
January 12, 1996.)


France:


“Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to
ethical as well as medical considerations.”
(Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l’Environment, August
25,
2000).


Germany:


“Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions
to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general
permission of fluo
ridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication.”
(Gerda
Hankel
-
Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999).



Hungary:


Stopped fluoridating for technical reasons in the 1960s. However, despite techno
logical advances, Hungary has
chosen to remain unfluoridated.


India:


Naturally high levels of fluorides in groundwater have affected at least tens of millions with skeletal fluorosis,
often resulting in crippling skeletal fluorosis. The Indian governmen
t has been working to
remove
the fluorides
from drinking water sources to alleviate this crisis. In India, 17 of its 32 states have been identified as
“endemic” areas, with an estimated 66 million people at risk from crippling skeletal fluorosis and 6 mil
lion
people seriously afflicted.


Israel:


Recently suspended mandatory fluoridation until the issue is reexamined from all aspects: medical,
environmental, ethical and legal. “From our experience in Israel and the world when the fluoride issue is
studied
from all aspects it is rejected.”
(
Representative Shimon Tsuk,
Israeli Parliament)


June 21, 2006: The labor, welfare and health Knesset (Israeli Parliament) committee called on the ministry of
health to freeze the extension of the fluoridation of drinkin
g water in Israel and to study the issue in depth in
order to determine whether to continue with the project or to cancel it completely. Conclusions are to be
expected within a year. Until then, municipalities and Mekorot (Israel national water company) ar
e not required
to build new fluoride installations.


Committee Chairman MK (Member of Knesset) Moshe Sharoni and MKs Ran Cohen and David Tal claimed
during the investigation that the potential damage to public health and environment from fluoridation may b
e
greater than the benefits from decreased dental cavities.




Japan:


Rejected fluoridation: “...may cause health problems....” The 0.8
-
1.5 mg regulated level is for calcium
-
fluoride, not the hazardous waste by
-
product which is added with artificial fluor
idation.


Luxembourg:


“Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water
isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their
own to us
e the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs.”
(Jean
-
Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L’Environment, May 3, 2000).


Netherlands:


“From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1
970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands
was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and
co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal ba
sis for
fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis
for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for
this amendment and the propo
sal was withdrawn.”
(Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking
Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000).


Northern Ireland:


“The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where
fluoride
was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for
operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern
Ireland.”
(C.J. Grimes, Department for Regio
nal Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000).


Norway:


“In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that
drinking water should not be fluoridated.”
(Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa State
ns institutt for
folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000).



Scotland:


In November 2004, after months of consultation, Scotland
-
which had been unfluoridated
-
rejected plans to
add fluoride to the nation’s water.


Sw
eden:


“Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental
health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown.”
(Gunnar Guzikowski,
Chief Government Inspector, Livsm
edels Verket
--
National Food Administration Drinking Water Division,
Sweden, February 28, 2000).



Switzerland:


In April 9, 2003, the City Parliament of Basel, Switzerland voted 73 to 23 to stop Basel’s 41 year water
fluoridation program. Basel was the
only city in Switzerland to fluoridate its water, and the only city in
continental western Europe, outside of a few areas in Spain.

(a messy paste, im sorry, just happened like that. Still readable tho.)

King Mob

Flabbaflub wrote: »

Most Countries Reject Water Fluoridation


Statements from European and other Health, Water, & Environment
Authorities on Water Fluoridation

There's a difference between not fluoridating and banning fluoridation.

Not a single country on your list bans fluoridation.

Saying it's banned is a distortion of the truth common with anti-fluoridation advocates.

Flabbaflub

King Mob wrote: »

There's a difference between not fluoridating and banning fluoridation.

Not a single country on your list bans fluoridation.

Saying it's banned is a distortion of the truth common with anti-fluoridation advocates.

Lets not have a play on words my friend.

Lets give the people the proper information available and let them come to their own conclusions.

King Mob

Flabbaflub wrote: »

Lets not have a play on words my friend.

Lets give the people the proper information available and let them come to their own conclusions.

I'm all for that too, but saying something is banned when it is not is not telling the truth. No country has banned it.

Some don't do it for various reasons, others never bothered in the first place. So why say it is banned?

The only reason I can see that someone might is because they want it to sound more dramatic and scary than it actually is.

Only one side in this debate is relying on lies, hyperbole and ignorance of science to give people the proper information available.

Flabbaflub

King Mob wrote: »

I'm all for that too, but saying something is banned when it is not is not telling the truth. No country has banned it.

Some don't do it for various reasons, others never bothered in the first place. So why say it is banned?

The only reason I can see that someone might is because they want it to sound more dramatic and scary than it actually is.

Only one side in this debate is relying on lies, hyperbole and ignorance of science to give people the proper information available.

And what a warrior you are to stay up this late and defend the use of fluoride in the public tap water of ireland.

Kudos.

stevejazzx

King Mob wrote: »

Fluoridation is not banned in any country.

Why does the anti fluoridation crowd need to keep repeating lies like that to convince people?

Papers showing both the effectiveness of fluoridation and it's safety in the long term have already been provided.
No papers showing harm at the levels present in drinking water have been provided

Firstly apologies, I hadn't realised it wasn't technically banned just effectively banned in most EU countries. So you win a point for that but unfortunately the point remains - the countries who don't practice floridation do not have teeth / cavity issues on a larger scale than those who do practice floridation? If so I have not seen a comparison chart, if you know of one please post it. Lets try and stay on point also - The other points from my post was that standard easily available methods for treating and caring for teeth are readily available so why bother?

Slugs

2003 WHO Oral Health report report - http://www.who.int/oral_health/media/en/orh_report03_en.pdf

Page 18 - Australia, U.S. and Brazil all fluoridate. Europe is a mix, some do some don't, and some, such as Sweden, have prohibited it according to the wiki (take that for what you will).

China did and stopped, and has one of the lowest level of cavities despite having a dense population.

So what does that show us?

That water fluoridation has negligible effect on cavities.

zenno

Write a letter (not an e-mail) to your local TD and send this letter by registered post telling them you want the fluoride chemical removed from the Irish mains water system. This would be the correct way to make your point.

Best of luck to the one's that do.

Slugs

http://www.mah.se/CAPP/Country-Oral-Health-Profiles/EURO/

Very interesting, particularly when you compare countries that do fluoridate against those that don't. What you see overall is a general trend towards less cavity issues regardless of fluoridation of the water supply.

I take from this that a decrease in cavities is more to do with an increase in sanitation and oral healthcare than the addition of fluoride to the water supply.

Examples:
Germany, does not fluoridate - 0.7 DMFT in 2009
Austria, does not fluoridate - 1.4 DMFT in 2007
Greece, does not fluoridate - 1.35 DMFT 2006 - 2007
Ireland, does and doesn't (I assume this is a comparison between north and south - 1.8 (NF) and 1.1 (F) DMFT in 2002*
U.K. Small percentage receives fluoridation - 0.7 DMFT in 2009

China, does not fluoridate - 0.5 DMFT in 2005
Hong Kong, fluoridates - 0.8 DMFT in 2001


*Now, before you point out that Fluoridated is a lower statistic, I'd like to highlight the fact that both have experienced a decrease of 1.5 DMFT from 1984 to 2002, again, I believe, an increase of oral healthcare and sanitation.

King Mob

stevejazzx wrote: »

Firstly apologies, I hadn't realised it wasn't technically banned just effectively banned in most EU countries.

No, it's not even effectively banned anywhere.
Nowhere is there laws forbidding fluoridation of water. That is what banned means and that is what you imply when you use the word. But it is not true.

Using the word banned implies that these countries are opposed more to fluoridation than they actually are. Hence why it is used by anti science propaganda sites.

stevejazzx wrote: »

the countries who don't practice floridation do not have teeth / cavity issues on a larger scale than those who do practice floridation?

These countries do practice fluoridation, just with other methods such as fluoridating milk and salt.

The best way to determine the effectiveness of fluoridation is not to engage in amateur statistics, but to look at the studies done specifically on the effectiveness of fluoridation.
These have been posted and these show that it is effective.

But now if we are just debating the relative effectiveness of fluoridation vs other methods, why do so on the conspiracy theories forum?
Why not just present the evidence you your guys feel shows that fluoridation is less effective and use that to argue for it's discontinuation?

Slugs

King Mob wrote: »

These countries do practice fluoridation, just with other methods such as fluoridating milk and salt.

The best way to determine the effectiveness of fluoridation is not to engage in amateur statistics, but to look at the specific studies done on the effectiveness of fluoridation.
These have been posted and these show that it is effective.

But now if we are just debating the relative effectiveness of fluoridation vs other methods, why do so on the conspiracy theories forum?
Why not just present the evidence you your guys feel shows that fluoridation is less effective and use that to argue for it's discontinuation?

Did I not just do that? Did I not just provide you with evidence to support that the fluoridation of the water supply does not meaningfully contribute to a decrease in DMFT? Or are we dismissing that as "Amateur statistics" despite the fact that these statistics are used by the WHO?

King Mob

Slugs wrote: »

Did I not just do that? Did I not just provide you with evidence to support that the fluoridation of the water supply does not meaningfully contribute to a decrease in DMFT? Or are we dismissing that as "Amateur statistics" despite the fact that these statistics are used by the WHO?

Did the WHO specifically state that these statistics show that fluoridation is ineffective?
If not, then you are assuming a conclusion that you cannot from the data you are providing, even if your were a statistician.

What has been provided are papers that directly study the effectiveness of fluoridation and found that it is effective.
Why are these studies invalid?

Slugs

Re-read what I wrote. I am not dismissing the effectiveness of Fluoridation. I am dismissing the effectiveness of FLUORIDATION OF THE WATER SUPPLY, which are the statistics I am providing to you.

Now please re-evaluate what I have written.

King Mob

Slugs wrote: »

Re-read what I wrote. I am not dismissing the effectiveness of Fluoridation. I am dismissing the effectiveness of FLUORIDATION OF THE WATER SUPPLY, which are the statistics I am providing to you.

Now please re-evaluate what I have written.

My point stands as I was referring to fluoridation of water.

Unless the WHO report specifically states it's statistics show that fluoridation of water is not effective, you cannot make that conclusion for it.

And there has been papers posted about the fluoridation of water that do state that it's effective. You've not given a valid reason to reject these.

Slugs

King Mob wrote: »

My point stands as I was referring to fluoridation of water.

Unless the WHO report specifically states it's statistics show that fluoridation of water is not effective, you cannot make that conclusion for it.

And there has been papers posted about the fluoridation of water that do state that it's effective. You've not given a valid reason to reject these.

Hold up a ****ing second.

Firstly, can you clarify in your future posts and discussion with me on the topic whether you're referring to fluoridation or fluoridation of the water supply.

Secondly, if they don't reach that conclusion because it wasn't a part of the report, what prevents me making that conclusion exactly?

And thirdly, what papers? I've went through the thread, I've found 1. That 256 page York report which I intend to read. If there're others, I'd like to see them.

stevejazzx

King Mob wrote: »

No, it's not even effectively banned anywhere.
Nowhere is there laws forbidding fluoridation of water. That is what banned means and that is what you imply when you use the word. But it is not true.

Using the word banned implies that these countries are opposed more to fluoridation than they actually are. Hence why it is used by anti science
propaganda sites.

No that's not entirely accurate KingMob
It was effectively banned in Holland in 1973 (the government said its use is not authorised - see wiki text below)
Many countries have rejected it and issued statements explaining why - mainly citing potential long term side effects / harm.

The fact that in many countries there no laws regulating it and that these countries have also officially rejected it is close enough to calling it an effective ban.

I appreciate your efforts in preventing scaremongering with the overuse of explicit and simply untrue phrases that are known to be associated with conspiracy nuts who like to overstate and simply lie about certain things - however in this instance the phrase

"certain countries have banned water floridation" hardly qualifies.

Saying they haven't banned it and not representing the fact that they are specifically against it is just as confusing and inaccurate as the nut who says it is brainwashing everyone.

wiki wrote:

Water was fluoridated in large parts of the Netherlands from 1960 to 1973, at which point the Supreme Court of the Netherlands declared fluoridation of drinking water unauthorized.[61] The Dutch Court decided that authorities had no legal basis for adding chemicals to drinking water if they also did not improve safety. It was also stated as support that consumers cannot choose a different tap water provider.[62] Drinking water has not been fluoridated in any part of the Netherlands since 1973.

---

km wrote:

These countries do practice fluoridation, just with other methods such as fluoridating milk and salt.

The best way to determine the effectiveness of fluoridation is not to engage in amateur statistics, but to look at the studies done specifically on the effectiveness of fluoridation.
These have been posted and these show that it is effective.

Effective at reducing cavities?
Is that needed in comparison to countries not floridating water?
I cant find anything to support that (that water floridation is necessary to control dental issues) - seems like a massive cost and possible burden (through poor regulation or corruption of supply) - and also carries a risk, albeit unsubstantiated, of some form of potential public harm.

km wrote:

Why not just present the evidence you your guys feel shows that fluoridation is less effective and use that to argue for it's discontinuation?

Why add something to our most precious resource unless it's an absolute necessity? If there is doubt (and clearly with large areas of the world deciding not to floridate the water supply, there is) why do it?

km wrote:

But now if we are just debating the relative effectiveness of fluoridation vs other methods, why do so on the conspiracy theories forum?

Well the thread started on the conspiracy forum - I don't care where its debated.
I think people in this forum should have enough discipline and respect for each other to be able to debate this rationally. I don't imagine that's a problem - if it attracts a larger forum, great.

Penn

Final warning to all:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85154592&postcount=189

Discuss the topic civilly or not at all.

Maudi

jh79 wrote: »

With a meter system we will only be paying for what we use so you could use the mains for the practical stuff and bottled for drinking.

There is presently no evidence to suggest any adverse effects of water fluoridation at concentrations present in Irish water. Ironically the papers often cited by anti-water fluoridation advocates only show toxicity at high concentrations thereby proving safety at lower concentrations.

Why filter it out it is good for your teeth.

Hi concentrations cited by flouride antis prove lower concentrations are safe? Do you drink much tapwater yourself?

King Mob

Slugs wrote: »

Hold up a ****ing second.

Firstly, can you clarify in your future posts and discussion with me on the topic whether you're referring to fluoridation or fluoridation of the water supply.

The topic of the thread is Fluoride in Tap water. That's what I was referring to. I thought it was very clear from the context of the post.

Slugs wrote: »

Secondly, if they don't reach that conclusion because it wasn't a part of the report, what prevents me making that conclusion exactly?

Because there are other factors that the report you are taking the figures from that may or may not have been factored in.
If the report was not covering the topic specifically, then the figures might not be appropriate to use in a different topic.
Secondly, neither of us are statisticians and even if we had access to that information, we would not know how to properly analyse the data.

Slugs wrote: »

And thirdly, what papers? I've went through the thread, I've found 1. That 256 page York report which I intend to read. If there're others, I'd like to see them.

You are correct, that is the only one that has been posted on this thread. I mistakenly believed there were others.

King Mob

stevejazzx wrote: »

No that's not entirely accurate KingMob
It was effectively banned in Holland in 1973 (the government said its use is not authorised - see wiki text below)

But that's not a ban, effective or otherwise.
Even still that's one, contrary to what the original claim is.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Many countries have rejected it and issued statements explaining why - mainly citing potential long term side effects / harm.

And it seems that many of these countries who issue these states are being misled by wrong or outdated information.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Saying they haven't banned it and not representing the fact that they are specifically against it is just as confusing and inaccurate as the nut who says it is brainwashing everyone.

So why not say that some countries have come out with statements saying that they have opted against fluoridation for X and Y reasons?

For many propaganda sources, this is not sensational enough, and the myth is spread uncritically.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Effective at reducing cavities?
Is that needed in comparison to countries not floridating water?
I cant find anything to support that (that water floridation is necessary to control dental issues) - seems like a massive cost and possible burden (through poor regulation or corruption of supply) - and also carries a risk, albeit unsubstantiated, of some form of potential public harm.

No one is arguing this.
I am arguing that water fluoridation is effective in reducing dental caries in populations.
Other methods are also effective.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Why add something to our most precious resource unless it's an absolute necessity? If there is doubt (and clearly with large areas of the world deciding not to floridate the water supply, there is) why do it?

But there isn't any valid doubt. There's no evidence that there is any adverse side effects.
The issue I have and the reason I oppose it's removal is purely because of the amount of anti science propaganda being used to support it's removal.

Stopping the practice because of unfounded fears, ignorance of science and conspiracy theories will just encourage the same opposition to stuff like vaccines and wifi.

Slugs

King Mob wrote: »

The topic of the thread is Fluoride in Tap water. That's what I was referring to. I thought it was very clear from the context of the post.


Because there are other factors that the report you are taking the figures from that may or may not have been factored in.
If the report was not covering the topic specifically, then the figures might not be appropriate to use in a different topic.

But I'm not taking those statistics from the report. I'm taking them from the databank that the WHO uses. They cite two, however the other leads me back to the initial source, so I need to look into that. Therefore, the findings of the report have no bearing on my conclusions as they're not being taken out of context.

Secondly, neither of us are statisticians and even if we had access to that information, we would not know how to properly analyse the data.

Being a statistician would only matter if we were conducting the calculations. We're not. We're comparing the results.

You are correct, that is the only one that has been posted on this thread. I mistakenly believed there were others.

If you find others, kindly throw them my way.

stevejazzx

King Mob wrote: »

But that's not a ban, effective or otherwise.
Even still that's one, contrary to what the original claim is.

Ok, lets be fair. Lets say no ban and but represent correctly the countries that don't allow it by including that information too?

km wrote:

And it seems that many of these countries who issue these states are being misled by wrong or outdated information.

Yeah, you may have a pont but we'd need many links to support this claim surely?

km wrote:

So why not say that some countries have come out with statements saying that they have opted against fluoridation for X and Y reasons?

Thats what I asked you?
I would be happy if they did that and if we could discuss that information (i.e their reasons).

km wrote:

For many propaganda sources, this is not sensational enough, and the myth is spread uncritically.

Propaganda?
The anti-floride propaganda? Who benefits?

km wrote:

No one is arguing this.
I am arguing that water fluoridation is effective in reducing dental caries in populations.
Other methods are also effective.

But we should be discussing this (the reason for floridation and if it is really needed) in fact I'm pretty sure this idea is bound to the thread.

BTW you are correct I imagine regarding other methods.

km wrote:

But there isn't any valid doubt. There's no evidence that there is any adverse side effects.
The issue I have and the reason I oppose it's removal is purely because of the amount of anti science propaganda being used to support it's removal.

Ok, let look at the unscientific part

The York report which is the only one I believe linked admits in its own conclusion that the report is not of required quality to make any real claims.
In fact it partly acknowledges possible harm to children.

Scientists in the last 30 years have decided there is enough doubt about long term exposure to advise governments to reject floridation. That is valid doubt unfortunately.

km wrote:

Stopping the practice because of unfounded fears, ignorance of science and conspiracy theories will just encourage the same opposition to stuff like vaccines and wifi.

Continuing the practice without higher quality studies as recommended by the York study is surely not advisable either?

I see what you mean but little point in comparing vaccines and wifi here as each area needs it own study. Besides if we decide that all the people in the anti-floride group are conspiracy nuts and anti-science then we are liable to dismiss a great number of people in well....an unscientific manner.
People opinions need to be broken down individually and people must account for their opinions. Indeed there are anti-science idiots everywhere but it is also apparent that a great deal of what is 'called' conspiracy is valid opposition.
Simply think about the number of international and corporate conspiracies that come to light daily (PRISM is one example) - people have a right to be concerned.
And people like you, someone who is clearly science minded and literate should absolutely keep on doing what you're doing i.e dismantling poor reason and mistruth where you see it on these forums - however I believe you should aim that well honed criticism at corporate and political bodies too. I don't see skeptics or scientists doing enough of that.