Fluoride in tap water

jh79

If you have scurvy you would take high doses of vitamin C as medicine. If you take vitamin C daily in small doses it is a supplement.

If you have osteoporosis you may be prescribed sodium fluoride as a medicine, taking low doses to prevent cavities makes it a supplement.

Did you read the pineal gland paper? They said they had no idea of the impact of the study as they know very little about its function. They also did not correlate this to fluoride intake as far as I know, the research is meaningless without a correlation to exposure to different fluoride levels.

Your beliefs are irrational because you fail to recognise that the research availanle only shows toxicity at levels well above ours.

You seem happy to drink water if the fluoride comes from a "natural" scource eventhough if the conc is similar than so is the toxicity, that is irrational.

Slugs

jh79 wrote: »

If you have scurvy you would take high doses of vitamin C as medicine. If you take vitamin C daily in small doses it is a supplement.

You get scurvy from a deficiency in Vitamin C. Cavities are NOT caused by a deficiency in Fluoride, but poor Oral Health. Therefore it is not the same and Fluoride is still medication.

If you have osteoporosis you may be prescribed sodium fluoride as a medicine, taking low doses to prevent cavities makes it a supplement.

Not caused by a deficiency in fluoride. Again, not comparable as it is medication again instead of supplement

Did you read the pineal gland paper? They said they had no idea of the impact of the study as they know very little about its function. They also did not correlate this to fluoride intake as far as I know, the research is meaningless without a correlation to exposure to different fluoride levels.

Other papers and other works give us insights into the functioning of the pineal gland which, as I've mentioned, controls DMT and melatonin production. Just because the paper provided did not find anything as they didn't know what to look for does not mean there is no implications. And I'd rather be safe than sorry wouldn't you?

Your beliefs are irrational because you fail to recognise that the research availanle only shows toxicity at levels well above ours.

Rather than claiming my beliefs and posts are irrational, perhaps refute them.

You seem happy to drink water if the fluoride comes from a "natural" scource eventhough if the conc is similar than so is the toxicity, that is irrational.

This is a different poster, however I will address your comment. As someone who does not currently live in a fluoridated water supply country, I avoid water sources that purposefully put fluoride in the bottle. An earlier poster asked would someone drink "natural" water sources with a level of 0.7 ppm of fluoride, kindly provide a "natural" water source that does have fluoride at that level? Water that contains fluoride where I am records levels that are small, roughly 0.13 mg/l, the largest I've found is 0.40 mg/l or 0.40 ppm. This is not the same as 0.7ppm. I don't want that **** near me, and purposefully avoid it as much as I can.

Furthermore, I assume natural fluoride in nature is found in Calcium fluoride ya? This is NOT the same as Sodium fluoride, much as H20 is not the same as H2O2. They are different chemical substances, and their effects will also differ.

FREETV

bumper234 wrote: »

No just.....NO

Elderly people have a problem with modern day technology simply because it is moving so fast. I work in IT and have trouble keeping up some days ffs. You are just pulling random lies and bull**** out of your ass now (although i am sure u have a link all ready to copy/paste to some random obscure "study" that has been done).

That's a bit rude now and below the belt, please don't accuse me please of telling lies and ever speak to me like that or any other poster on boards.

I have elderly Parents and relatives and I was talking about the basic PC skills, operating a remote, television, satellite receiver and tuning in, storing and sorting channels. Everything that I have said is true and I stand by it with no lies or exaggeration.
Take it easy on us all please and be civil.

FREETV

If you look back guys at my link posted last night you can see proof that fluoride over time can induce heart attacks believe it or not and has many other adverse side effects and reactions in the human system.

It is a blatant disregard for citizens of this state and their health forcing us to absorb in to our skin and drink and eat food, brush our teeth, use mouthwashes and be treated with the poison in dental practices.

I am blaming those who have lied to dentists over the years not the dentists themselves.

bumper234

FREETV wrote: »

That's a bit rude now and below the belt, please don't accuse me please of telling lies and ever speak to me like that or any other poster on boards.

I have elderly Parents and relatives and I was talking about the basic PC skills, operating a remote, television, satellite receiver and tuning in, storing and sorting channels. Everything that I have said is true and I stand by it with no lies or exaggeration.
Take it easy on us all please and be civil.

FREETV wrote: »

They make sure to keep it in the water to protect their jobs, dumbing the public down with fluoride which is in Prozac also, no wonder so many elderly have problems with using technology which
have been a witness to many times over the years. Dementia has been linked to Fluoride inducement/consumption over several years
Evil Pharmaceutical Companies make more money again from all of the side effects related to fluoride with treatments but no cures.

If you are going to make statements like the ones highlighted above without providing a shred of evidence then i am sorry but you are going to get called a liar. Just because your auntie or grannie cannot do these things does not mean a thing. I know 2 people who have won silver surfer awards, i know lots of elderly people who have been successful i business and guess what? They all live in areas where fluoride is added to the water supply.

bumper234

FREETV wrote: »

If you look back guys at my link posted last night you can see proof that fluoride over time can induce heart attacks believe it or not and has many other adverse side effects and reactions in the human system.

It is a blatant disregard for citizens of this state and their health forcing us to absorb in to our skin and drink and eat food, brush our teeth, use mouthwashes and be treated with the poison in dental practices.

I am blaming those who have lied to dentists over the years not the dentists themselves.

I read the newspapers every day and almost every week there is a "study" posted and depending on who has done it the results are.

1 wine is bad and gives you cancer

2 wine is good for you in moderation (glass per day)

3 wine is good for you and has cancer fighting properties


1 coffee is bad and gives you cancer

2 coffee is good for you in moderation (glass per day)

3 coffee is good for you and has cancer fighting properties


1 beer is bad and gives you cancer

2 beer is good for you in moderation (glass per day)

3 beer is good for you and has cancer fighting properties

So no offence but your study unless backed up with solid proof is pretty much worthless

FREETV

bumper234 wrote: »

quote="FREETV;85197470"]They make sure to keep it in the water to protect their jobs, dumbing the public down with fluoride [\B]which is in Prozac also, no wonder so many elderly have problems with using technology which
have been a witness to many times over the years. Dementia has been linked to Fluoride inducement/consumption over several years[\B]
Evil Pharmaceutical Companies make more money again from all of the side effects related to fluoride with treatments but no cures.

If you are going to make statements like the ones highlighted above without providing a shred of evidence then i am sorry but you are going to get called a liar. Just because your auntie or grannie cannot do these things does not mean a thing. I know 2 people who have won silver surfer awards, i know lots of elderly people who have been successful i business and guess what? They all live in areas where fluoride is added to the water supply.[/QUOTE]

http://www.naturalnews.com/fluoride.html

http://ekoscommunications.com/content/fluoride-conspiracy

Have a read people.

jh79

Slugs wrote: »

You get scurvy from a deficiency in Vitamin C. Cavities are NOT caused by a deficiency in Fluoride, but poor Oral Health. Therefore it is not the same and Fluoride is still medication.

Not caused by a deficiency in fluoride. Again, not comparable as it is medication again instead of supplement


Other papers and other works give us insights into the functioning of the pineal gland which, as I've mentioned, controls DMT and melatonin production. Just because the paper provided did not find anything as they didn't know what to look for does not mean there is no implications. And I'd rather be safe than sorry wouldn't you?



Rather than claiming my beliefs and posts are irrational, perhaps refute them.



This is a different poster, however I will address your comment. As someone who does not currently live in a fluoridated water supply country, I avoid water sources that purposefully put fluoride in the bottle. An earlier poster asked would someone drink "natural" water sources with a level of 0.7 ppm of fluoride, kindly provide a "natural" water source that does have fluoride at that level? Water that contains fluoride where I am records levels that are small, roughly 0.13 mg/l, the largest I've found is 0.40 mg/l or 0.40 ppm. This is not the same as 0.7ppm. I don't want that **** near me, and purposefully avoid it as much as I can.

Furthermore, I assume natural fluoride in nature is found in Calcium fluoride ya? This is NOT the same as Sodium fluoride, much as H20 is not the same as H2O2. They are different chemical substances, and their effects will also differ.

According to wiki it isn't generally considered a supplement but some people believe its ability to prevent cavities make it an essential trace element.

The pineal gland stuff is completely up in air, they could not show that it interfered with it's normal function, any papers compare pineal gland stuff in areas with varying levels of fluoride in the water supply. If fluoride is so toxic why is it so difficult to find any research showing toxicity at 1ppm, any direct links to disease type and any proposed mechanisms of toxicity? If you apply "safe than sorry" attitude to its natural conclusion there is very little you could eat , drink or do. Scientific opinion is always based on what we know now.

Fluoride levels vary all over the world, some places have up to 15ppm which is obviously not good but we have less than 1ppm. Dose determines toxicity which you don't seem to understand. You could down a bottle of beer but a bottle of whiskey would probably kill you, I don't think it is a difficult concept but anti-water fluoridation advocates never seem to be able to grasp it. Risk assessment of a water supply containing 0.4 ppm would be the same as 1ppm as toxicity isn't seen until at 10ppm, it's illogical to drink water with 0.4ppm but campaign against water with 1ppm.

Your chemistry is all wrong. Fluoride exists in only one form. When calcium fluoride meets water it dissociates to give fluoride the same as sodium fluoride. A 1ppm fluoride solution due to calcium fluoride has the same toxicity or lack of as a solution in which the 1ppm came from Sodium fluoride.

H202 is hydrogen peroxide it is used as rocket fuel as it provides hydrogen with water as an industrial waste product. This water is exactly the same as H2O. The water we drink is not pure H20 as that would kill you. We need impurities in our water supply to survive.

FREETV

bumper234 wrote: »

I read the newspapers every day and almost every week there is a "study" posted and depending on who has done it the results are.

1 wine is bad and gives you cancer

2 wine is good for you in moderation (glass per day)

3 wine is good for you and has cancer fighting properties


1 coffee is bad and gives you cancer

2 coffee is good for you in moderation (glass per day)

3 coffee is good for you and has cancer fighting properties


1 beer is bad and gives you cancer

2 beer is good for you in moderation (glass per day)

3 beer is good for you and has cancer fighting properties

So no offence but your study unless backed up with solid proof is pretty much worthless

I have linked lots of solid proof, I am not a scientist, I studied Electronics.

bumper234

FREETV wrote: »

If you are going to make statements like the ones highlighted above without providing a shred of evidence then i am sorry but you are going to get called a liar. Just because your auntie or grannie cannot do these things does not mean a thing. I know 2 people who have won silver surfer awards, i know lots of elderly people who have been successful i business and guess what? They all live in areas where fluoride is added to the water supply.

http://www.naturalnews.com/fluoride.html

http://ekoscommunications.com/content/fluoride-conspiracy

Have a read people.[/quote]

Anything with the word "conspiracy" in the title is not really a reliable source imo

jh79

FREETV wrote: »

I have linked lots of solid proof, I am not a scientist, I studied Electronics.

Natural news isn't taken serious by any scientist. Every disease known to man has been cured, according to that site all by natural product they sell with only anecdotal evidence.

FREETV

bumper234 wrote: »

http://www.naturalnews.com/fluoride.html

http://ekoscommunications.com/content/fluoride-conspiracy

Have a read people.

Anything with the word "conspiracy" in the title is not really a reliable source imo[/QUOTE]
Remember what they found out about the NSA spying recently it was a so called conspiracy theory that was proven to be a reality so don't dismiss anything out of hand and always try to keep an open mind.

jh79

FREETV wrote: »

Anything with the word "conspiracy" in the title is not really a reliable source imo

Remember what they found out about the NSA spying recently it was a so called conspiracy theory that was proven to be a reality so don't dismiss anything out of hand and always try to keep an open mind. [/QUOTE]

But in the case of scientific matters they have to abide by the laws of science. A lot of the stuff on natural news makes no sense or involve the misrepresentation of scientific data as can be seen with Dr Mullinex paper regarding fluoride toxicity.

jh79

If our legal system is similar to the uk this may be of interest:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/11/flouride-tap-water-southampton

An article form Ben Goldacre saying that the studies into this area are so poor that neither the benefits or toxicity of fluoridation can be stated for sure.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/medicalresearch.health

FREETV

jh79 wrote: »

If our legal system is similar to the uk this may be of interest:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/11/flouride-tap-water-southampton

An article form Ben Goldacre saying that the studies into this area are so poor that neither the benefits or toxicity of fluoridation can be stated for sure.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/medicalresearch.health

I would never believe anything advocating for the use of fluoride from the main stream media as it is widely known that they are in cahoots with the intelligence agencies and big corporations. Where there is money to be made there is always corruption.

King Mob

FREETV wrote: »

Where there is money to be made there is always corruption.

There is money to be made in scaring people about the effects of fluoride. Yet you trust these people purely because you assume they aren't lying.

Do you not think that this is contradictory?

maringo

Statements from European Health and Environment agencies on flouridation. (halfway down the page) interesting too to read the pros and cons for flouridation of water

http://chemistry.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=chemistry&cdn=education&tm=14&f=10&tt=2&bt=7&bts=7&zu=http%3A//www.slweb.org/fluoridation.html

FREETV

King Mob wrote: »

There is money to be made in scaring people about the effects of fluoride. Yet you trust these people purely because you assume they aren't lying.

Do you not think that this is contradictory?

There is money to be made from almost everything but there are also a lot of good people out there pushing for good and people's rights and the right to not have toxic additives in their food, dental supplies and water, drinks etc.

Informing people doesn't mean that people always have an agenda for making money.

King Mob

FREETV wrote: »

There is money to be made from almost everything but there are also a lot of good people out there pushing for good and people's rights and the right to not have toxic additives in their food, dental supplies and water, drinks etc.

Informing people doesn't mean that people always have an agenda for making money.

But you said that where there is money to be made there is always corruption.

There is money to be made form spreading fear about fluoride. Therefore following your logic there must be corruption.

There are a lot of good people in dental health and science who are are pushing for people to be healthy, but you are dismissing them and assuming they are all evil because they make money.

You are applying a double standard, I'm trying to figure out how you justify this.

Treora

"In countries such as the Scandinavian countries, where public dental awareness is very high and alternative vehicles for fluoride (e.g. tooth paste) are widely available and widely used, a decision not to replace fluoride removed from the dinking water would be of no consequence."
WHO - 2005 - Nutrients in Drinking Water
Profs Helen Whelton (Ireland's behavioural dentist!) & Dennis O'Mullane (of Forum on Fluoridation fame)

Would it be easier to ban it in the EU since it is already banned in a number of EU states and only law in one. Could this be used EU Citizens Initative or is another one needed?

jh79

Treora wrote: »

"In countries such as the Scandinavian countries, where public dental awareness is very high and alternative vehicles for fluoride (e.g. tooth paste) are widely available and widely used, a decision not to replace fluoride removed from the dinking water would be of no consequence."
WHO - 2005 - Nutrients in Drinking Water
Profs Helen Whelton (Ireland's behavioural dentist!) & Dennis O'Mullane (of Forum on Fluoridation fame)

Would it be easier to ban it in the EU since it is already banned in a number of EU states and only law in one. Could this be used EU Citizens Initative or is another one needed?

It is not banned, and I would hope the minister has alot more important things to be dealing with than the paranoia of an ill-informed minority pressure group.

Treora

EU LEX It is banned in Denmark, an illegal water additive in Luxembourg, unethical in France, not permitted in the Netherlands and Belgium. The Beligique even think it causes osteoporosis and damage the nervous system (BBC)

Between April and September 1999 it appears to have be forbidden barring exceptions in [URL="(http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/germany.pdf"]Germany[/URL] and it is banned in Sweden.

Public appears to be moving against it. Hot Press 1 Hot Press 2

It is important for dentists to remember that they are dentists not scientists. It would be nice if they questioned their personal bias and training on what appears to be an emotional topic as many have invested so must of their careers into scientific surveys (useful but final) not clinical or empiricial studies.

jh79

Treora wrote: »

EU LEX It is banned in Denmark, an illegal water additive in Luxembourg, unethical in France, not permitted in the Netherlands and Belgium. The Beligique even think it causes osteoporosis and damage the nervous system (BBC)

Between April and September 1999 it appears to have be forbidden barring exceptions in [URL="(http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/germany.pdf"]Germany[/URL] and it is banned in Sweden (Sweden).


Public appears to be moving against it. Hot Press 1 Hot Press 2

It is important for dentists to remember that they are dentists not scientists. It would be nice if they questioned their personal bias and training on what appears to be an emotion topic as many have invested so must of their careers into scientific surveys (useful but final) not clinical or empiricial studies.

Dentists would have a better understanding of medicinal chemistry than the bulk of those behind the anti-water fluoridation movement. They would have more experience in reading and interpretating scientific papers which is obviously not the case with those behind websites such as fluoride alert. We are in the CT forum because believing that the current available data shows that fluoride levels below 1 ppm are a health risk is so outlandish.

Instead of pretending that fluoride is banned in some countries give some data that shows toxicity at levels of 0.7 to1ppm.

By the way water fluoridation has recently begun in Southampton does that cancel out the fact that they don't do it in Belgium? A high court injunction brought against Southampton council was not susuccessful because the judge couldn't find a valid reason not to fluoridate.

Treora

Ah the goading tactic. Often used by creationists and scientologists. You have failed to provide any evidence that dentists are scientists. I only referred to field specialist, qualified phD/Dr., published, peer reviewed scientists. Only you have referred to CTers.

You appear to be on the backfoot and respond to evidence with rhetoric. This is were you go off on an irrational and emotive rant. Please continue I find it so entertaining.

jh79

Treora wrote: »

Ah the goading tactic. Often used by creationists and scientologists. You have failed to provide any evidence that dentists are scientists. I only referred to field specialist, qualified phD/Dr., published, peer reviewed scientists. Only you have referred to CTers.

You appear to be on the backfoot and respond to evidence with rhetoric. This is were you go off on an irrational and emotive rant. Please continue I find it so entertaining.

You don't think dentists are scientists? What are they then? I'd imagine they would study the biochemistry involved in tooth formation / decay, oral based infections etc pretty sure chemistry and biology modules would be part of their education.

So in your opinion which single piece of research provides the most damning indictment of water fluoridation?

Ever wonder why these threads are only ever in AH or CT forums but never the science forums? Strange that!

jh79

I can't see any posts were you have provided any evidence agaisnt water fluoridation. Another country ceasing fluoridation proves nothing.

Have any new studies come to light since the scientific advisors to the government advised that there was no valid reason to cease fluoridation?  

One of your posts quotes a dentist , the opinions of dentist are valid as long as they agree with you?

Aspiring

After doing some looking around here's some evidence. Subject which really interests me and I saw it in recent posts so thought I'd contribute. I'm sure some of this is already brought up but somebody said there was no sources or something? (guy above me)

1. Fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skins, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea.
A.K. Susheela and Mohan Jha, “Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancerous Bone Composition,” IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Vol. 9, No.11, pp. 1021-1022 (1981); Y. D. Sharma, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Collagen Cross-Link Precursors,” Toxicological Letters, Vol. 10, pp. 97-100 (1982); A. K. Susheela and D. Mukerjee,
“Fluoride poisoning and the Effect of Collagen Biosynthesis of Osseous and Nongaseous Tissue,” Toxicological European Research, Vol. 3, No.2, pp. 99-104 (1981); Y.D. Sharma, “Variations in the Metabolism and Maturation of Collagen after Fluoride Ingestion,” Biochemica et Biophysica Acta, Vol. 715, pp. 137-141 (1982); Marian Drozdz et al., “Studies on the Influence of Fluoride Compounds upon Connective Tissue Metabolism in Growing Rats” and “Effect of Sodium Fluoride With and Without Simultaneous Exposure to Hydrogen Fluoride on Collagen Metabolism,” Journal of Toxicological Medicine, Vol. 4, pp. 151-157 (1984).

2. Fluoride stimulates granule formation and oxygen consumption in white blood cells, but inhibits these processes when the white blood cell is challenged by a foreign agent in the blood.
Robert A. Clark, “Neutrophil Iodination Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications for Degranulation and Metabolic Activation,” Blood, Vol. 57, pp. 913-921 (1981).

3. Fluoride depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to properly destroy foreign agents by the process of phagocytosis. As little as 0.2 ppm fluoride stimulates
superperoxide production in resting white blood cells, virtually abolishing phagocytosis. Even micro-molar amounts of fluoride, below 1 ppm, may seriously depress the ability of white blood cells to destroy pathogenic agents.
John Curnette, et al, “Fluoride-mediated Activation of the Respiratory Burst in Human Neutrophils,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, Vol. 63, pp. 637-647 (1979); W. L. Gabler and P. A. Leong, ., “Fluoride Inhibition of Polymorphonumclear Leukocytes,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 48, No. 9, pp. 1933-1939 (1979); W. L. Gabler, et al., “Effect of Fluoride on the Kinetics of Superoxide Generation by Fluoride,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 64, p. 281 (1985); A. S. Kozlyuk, et al., “Immune Status of Children in Chemically Contaminated Environments,” Zdravookhranenie, Issue 3, pp. 6-9 (1987)

4. Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body’s own tissues, and increases the tumor growth rate in cancer prone individuals.
Alfred Taylor and Nell C. Taylor, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Tumor Growth,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol. 119, p. 252 (1965); Sheila Gibson, “Effects of Fluoride on Immune System Function,” Complementary Medical Research, Vol. 6, pp. 111-113 (1992); Peter Wilkinson, “Inhibition of the Immune System With Low Levels of Fluorides,” Testimony before the Scottish High Court in Edinburgh in the Case of McColl vs.
Strathclyde Regional Council, pp. 17723-18150, 19328-19492, and Exhibit 636, (1982); D. W. Allman and M. Benac, “Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 55 (Supplement , p. 523 (1976); S. Jaouni and D. W. Allman, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride and Aluminum on Adenylate Cyclase and Phosphodiesterase Activity,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 64, p. 201 (1985)

5. Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood.
S. K. Jain and A. K. Susheela, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Antibody Formation in Rabbits,” Environmental Research, Vol. 44, pp. 117-125 (1987)

6. Fluoride depresses thyroid activity.
Viktor Gorlitzer Von Mundy, “Influence of Fluorine and Iodine on the Metabolism, Particularly on the Thyroid Gland,” Muenchener Medicische Wochenschrift, Vol. 105, pp. 182-186 (1963); A. Benagiano, “The Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Thyroid Enzymes and Basal Metabolism in the Rat,” Annali Di Stomatologia, Vol. 14, pp. 601-619 (1965); Donald Hillman, et al., “Hypothyroidism and Anemia Related to Fluoride in Dairy Cattle,” Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 62, No.3, pp..416-423 (1979); V. Stole and J. Podoba, “Effect of Fluoride on the Biogenesis of Thyroid Hormones,” Nature, Vol. 188, No. 4753, pp. 855-856 (1960); Pierre Galleti and Gustave Joyet, “Effect of Fluorine on Thyroid Iodine Metabolism and Hyperthyroidism,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 18, pp. 1102-1110 (1958)

7. Fluorides have a disruptive effect on various tissues in the body.
T. Takamorim “The Heart Changes in Growing Albino Rats Fed on Varied Contents of Fluorine,” The Toxicology of Fluorine Symposium, Bern, Switzerland, Oct 1962, pp. 125-129; Vilber A.O. Bello and Hillel J. Gitelman, “High Fluoride Exposure in Hemodialysis Patients,” American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. 15, pp. 320-324 (1990); Y. Yoshisa, Experimental Studies on Chronic Fluorine Poisoning,” Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, Vol. 1, pp. 683-690 (1959)

8. Fluoride promotes development of bone cancer.
J.K. Mauer, et al., “Two-Year Cacinogenicity Study Of Sodium Fluoride In Rats,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 82, pp. 1118-1126 (1990); Proctor and Gamble Carcinogenicity Studies with Sodium Fluoride in Rats” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Presentation, July 27, 1985; S. E. Hurdley et al., “Drinking Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma,” Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, pp. 415-416 (1990); P. D. Cohn, “A Brief Report on the Association of Drinking Water Fluoridation and Incidence of Osteosarcoma in Young Males,” New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, New Jersey, Nov. 1992; M. C. Mahoney et al., “Bone Cancer Incidence Rates in New York,” American
Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, pp. 81, 475 (1991); Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton, “Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride,” Genetics Vol. 48, pp. 307-310 (1963); J. A. Disney, et al., “ A Case Study in Testing the Conventional Wisdom: School Based Fluoride Mouth Rinse Programs in the USA,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, Vol. 18, pp. 46-56 (1990); D. J. Newell, “Fluoridation of Water Supplies and Cancer - An Association?,” Applied Statistics, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 125-135 (1977)

9. Fluorides cause premature aging of the human body.
Nicholas Leone, et al., “Medical Aspects of Excessive Fluoride in a Water Supply,” Public Health Reports, Vol. 69, pp. 925-936 (1954); J. David Erikson, “Mortality of Selected Cities with Fluoridated and Non-Fluoridated Water Supplies,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 298, pp. 1112-1116 (1978); “The Village Where People Are Old Before Their Time,” Stern Magazine, Vol. 30, pp. 107-108, 111-112 (1978)

10. Fluoride ingestion from mouth rinses and dentifrice’s in children is extremely hazardous to biological development, life span and general health.
Yngve Ericsson and Britta Forsman, “Fluoride Retained From Mouth Rinses and Dentifrices In Preschool Children,” Caries Research, Vol. 3, pp. 290-299 (1969); W. L. Augenstein, et al., “Fluoride Ingestion In Children: A Review Of 87 Cases,” Pediatrics, Vol. 88, pp. 907-912, (1991); Charles Wax, “Field Investigation Report,” State of Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, March 19, 1980, 67 pages; George Waldbott, “Mass Intoxication from Over-Fluoridation in Drinking Water,” Clinical Toxicology, Vol. 18, No.5, pp. 531-541(1981)

jh79

Aspiring wrote: »

After doing some looking around here's some evidence. Subject which really interests me and I saw it in recent posts so thought I'd contribute. I'm sure some of this is already brought up but somebody said there was no sources or something? (guy above me)

1. Fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skins, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea.
A.K. Susheela and Mohan Jha, “Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancerous Bone Composition,” IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Vol. 9, No.11, pp. 1021-1022 (1981); Y. D. Sharma, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Collagen Cross-Link Precursors,” Toxicological Letters, Vol. 10, pp. 97-100 (1982); A. K. Susheela and D. Mukerjee,
“Fluoride poisoning and the Effect of Collagen Biosynthesis of Osseous and Nongaseous Tissue,” Toxicological European Research, Vol. 3, No.2, pp. 99-104 (1981); Y.D. Sharma, “Variations in the Metabolism and Maturation of Collagen after Fluoride Ingestion,” Biochemica et Biophysica Acta, Vol. 715, pp. 137-141 (1982); Marian Drozdz et al., “Studies on the Influence of Fluoride Compounds upon Connective Tissue Metabolism in Growing Rats” and “Effect of Sodium Fluoride With and Without Simultaneous Exposure to Hydrogen Fluoride on Collagen Metabolism,” Journal of Toxicological Medicine, Vol. 4, pp. 151-157 (1984).

2. Fluoride stimulates granule formation and oxygen consumption in white blood cells, but inhibits these processes when the white blood cell is challenged by a foreign agent in the blood.
Robert A. Clark, “Neutrophil Iodination Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications for Degranulation and Metabolic Activation,” Blood, Vol. 57, pp. 913-921 (1981).

3. Fluoride depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to properly destroy foreign agents by the process of phagocytosis. As little as 0.2 ppm fluoride stimulates
superperoxide production in resting white blood cells, virtually abolishing phagocytosis. Even micro-molar amounts of fluoride, below 1 ppm, may seriously depress the ability of white blood cells to destroy pathogenic agents.
John Curnette, et al, “Fluoride-mediated Activation of the Respiratory Burst in Human Neutrophils,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, Vol. 63, pp. 637-647 (1979); W. L. Gabler and P. A. Leong, ., “Fluoride Inhibition of Polymorphonumclear Leukocytes,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 48, No. 9, pp. 1933-1939 (1979); W. L. Gabler, et al., “Effect of Fluoride on the Kinetics of Superoxide Generation by Fluoride,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 64, p. 281 (1985); A. S. Kozlyuk, et al., “Immune Status of Children in Chemically Contaminated Environments,” Zdravookhranenie, Issue 3, pp. 6-9 (1987)

4. Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body’s own tissues, and increases the tumor growth rate in cancer prone individuals.
Alfred Taylor and Nell C. Taylor, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Tumor Growth,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol. 119, p. 252 (1965); Sheila Gibson, “Effects of Fluoride on Immune System Function,” Complementary Medical Research, Vol. 6, pp. 111-113 (1992); Peter Wilkinson, “Inhibition of the Immune System With Low Levels of Fluorides,” Testimony before the Scottish High Court in Edinburgh in the Case of McColl vs.
Strathclyde Regional Council, pp. 17723-18150, 19328-19492, and Exhibit 636, (1982); D. W. Allman and M. Benac, “Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 55 (Supplement , p. 523 (1976); S. Jaouni and D. W. Allman, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride and Aluminum on Adenylate Cyclase and Phosphodiesterase Activity,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 64, p. 201 (1985)

5. Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood.
S. K. Jain and A. K. Susheela, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Antibody Formation in Rabbits,” Environmental Research, Vol. 44, pp. 117-125 (1987)

6. Fluoride depresses thyroid activity.
Viktor Gorlitzer Von Mundy, “Influence of Fluorine and Iodine on the Metabolism, Particularly on the Thyroid Gland,” Muenchener Medicische Wochenschrift, Vol. 105, pp. 182-186 (1963); A. Benagiano, “The Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Thyroid Enzymes and Basal Metabolism in the Rat,” Annali Di Stomatologia, Vol. 14, pp. 601-619 (1965); Donald Hillman, et al., “Hypothyroidism and Anemia Related to Fluoride in Dairy Cattle,” Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 62, No.3, pp..416-423 (1979); V. Stole and J. Podoba, “Effect of Fluoride on the Biogenesis of Thyroid Hormones,” Nature, Vol. 188, No. 4753, pp. 855-856 (1960); Pierre Galleti and Gustave Joyet, “Effect of Fluorine on Thyroid Iodine Metabolism and Hyperthyroidism,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 18, pp. 1102-1110 (1958)

7. Fluorides have a disruptive effect on various tissues in the body.
T. Takamorim “The Heart Changes in Growing Albino Rats Fed on Varied Contents of Fluorine,” The Toxicology of Fluorine Symposium, Bern, Switzerland, Oct 1962, pp. 125-129; Vilber A.O. Bello and Hillel J. Gitelman, “High Fluoride Exposure in Hemodialysis Patients,” American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. 15, pp. 320-324 (1990); Y. Yoshisa, Experimental Studies on Chronic Fluorine Poisoning,” Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, Vol. 1, pp. 683-690 (1959)

8. Fluoride promotes development of bone cancer.
J.K. Mauer, et al., “Two-Year Cacinogenicity Study Of Sodium Fluoride In Rats,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 82, pp. 1118-1126 (1990); Proctor and Gamble Carcinogenicity Studies with Sodium Fluoride in Rats” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Presentation, July 27, 1985; S. E. Hurdley et al., “Drinking Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma,” Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, pp. 415-416 (1990); P. D. Cohn, “A Brief Report on the Association of Drinking Water Fluoridation and Incidence of Osteosarcoma in Young Males,” New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, New Jersey, Nov. 1992; M. C. Mahoney et al., “Bone Cancer Incidence Rates in New York,” American
Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, pp. 81, 475 (1991); Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton, “Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride,” Genetics Vol. 48, pp. 307-310 (1963); J. A. Disney, et al., “ A Case Study in Testing the Conventional Wisdom: School Based Fluoride Mouth Rinse Programs in the USA,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, Vol. 18, pp. 46-56 (1990); D. J. Newell, “Fluoridation of Water Supplies and Cancer - An Association?,” Applied Statistics, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 125-135 (1977)

9. Fluorides cause premature aging of the human body.
Nicholas Leone, et al., “Medical Aspects of Excessive Fluoride in a Water Supply,” Public Health Reports, Vol. 69, pp. 925-936 (1954); J. David Erikson, “Mortality of Selected Cities with Fluoridated and Non-Fluoridated Water Supplies,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 298, pp. 1112-1116 (1978); “The Village Where People Are Old Before Their Time,” Stern Magazine, Vol. 30, pp. 107-108, 111-112 (1978)

10. Fluoride ingestion from mouth rinses and dentifrice’s in children is extremely hazardous to biological development, life span and general health.
Yngve Ericsson and Britta Forsman, “Fluoride Retained From Mouth Rinses and Dentifrices In Preschool Children,” Caries Research, Vol. 3, pp. 290-299 (1969); W. L. Augenstein, et al., “Fluoride Ingestion In Children: A Review Of 87 Cases,” Pediatrics, Vol. 88, pp. 907-912, (1991); Charles Wax, “Field Investigation Report,” State of Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, March 19, 1980, 67 pages; George Waldbott, “Mass Intoxication from Over-Fluoridation in Drinking Water,” Clinical Toxicology, Vol. 18, No.5, pp. 531-541(1981)

No new evidence , all this has been covered before. I maybe be wrong woth the date but in 2011 an advisory group to the goverment concluded that fluoridation poses no health risks at levels of 0.7 to 1ppm. A small minority of scientist disagree but they haven't been able to provide any convincing evidence. It is mostly alternative medicine types who are agaisnt fluoridation homeopaths and the like.

Aspiring

jh79 wrote: »

No new evidence , all this has been covered before. I maybe be wrong woth the date but in 2011 an advisory group to the goverment concluded that fluoridation poses no health risks at levels of 0.7 to 1ppm. A small minority of scientist disagree but they haven't been able to provide any convincing evidence. It is mostly alternative medicine types who are agaisnt fluoridation homeopaths and the like.

Has fluoride changed? Have human bodies changed? I don't see how the evidence not being new matters, it's still evidence.

Homeopaths? The 2000 winner of the nobel prize for medicine Arvid Carlsson is against water fluoridation. Some how I don't think he falls into 'homeopaths and the like'.

jh79

Aspiring wrote: »

Has fluoride changed? Have human bodies changed? I don't see how the evidence not being new matters, it's still evidence.

Homeopaths? The 2000 winner of the nobel prize for medicine Arvid Carlsson is against water fluoridation. Some how I don't think he falls into 'homeopaths and the like'.

Majority of scientists , not all I said.

You do realise that the scientists who advocate water fluoridation have taken this research into consideration but deemed it not to be sufficient evidence to cease fluoridation? The majority of the studies out there only show toxicity at extremely high concentrations. We only have approx 0.7ppm in our supply. Nobody has produced any evidence that fluoridation at this level is a health risk. Websites such as fluoride alert don't like to mention the fact that toxicity is dose dependant.

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

You don't think dentists are scientists?

Would a scientist replace your filling. Dentists are not scientists. I am not advocating for specific scientists evidence, however we know that the precautionary principle requires that it is up the proposers to include clinical and empiricial evidence that something they are proposing does not harm. Ireland has never had this.

Ireland would need a double blind, mass scale, longitudinal study based on clinical experiments. We have never had that. We brought in water fluoridation at a time when fluoridatated toothpaste was not widely available and thus did more good than harm. Today it has become entrenched as the default and is difficult to remove as so many people's careers, flow of WHO money and educational dogma in Ireland rests on it.

Everytime evidence has been shown to you, you have not been able to contradict it with evidence. The WHO has been using the ACA to promote water fluoridation from a country whose DMFT at 12 is 2.85. That is twice as bad as almost every country in Europe including Ireland. America has great dentistry for those that have a household income of over $200,000. It is a failed medical state for 95% of its population. The ACA is not a credibile authority if it has a DMFT at 12 of 2.85. When it gets to .7 like Sweden, who educate and don't fluoridate, then it can begin to regain credibility. As the WHO fail to promote tools that have proven effectiveness they are also fallible of group think. And before you go into their surveys as evidence, you have already failed on this point above.

I assume that this is either an emotional topic for you (dentistry in the family) or you are a sock puppet (will have a look through your other posts in a mo). You are on a CT forum arguing for water fluoridation, you are not skeptical just dogmatic.

jh79

Not an emotional topic just frustrating, read through the tread to see some of the nonsense that gets posted eg

"Natural fluoride is not harmful"
"Fluoride is in prozac makes us docile"

I don't know how beneficial fluoridation is but the evidence to date doesn't suggest any major health implications bar staining of teeth.You can't test for "safety". Tests so far only show toxicity at above 10ppm and no proven linj
ks to any disease types after long term exposure

jh79

Is there enough evidence to suggest that a study of this scope and scale is necessary? I don't think so. Studies to date have not convinced the Irish, US or UK scientific advisors have they? Any country that has ceases fluoridation done so for ethical reasons or in the case of Belgium because the green party were involved.

Animal studies have only shown toxicity at high levels and other studies that show a correlation between disease types and fluoridation have so many variables that it is hard to draw any conclusions. 60 odd years and no smoking gun ? Is the type of study you want really necessary or justified?

stuar

There is no reason whatsoever to add flouride to drinking water, healthy teeth my b0llox, I've been over this a few times over the years, for the people who still buy the healthy teeth crap, is there any other reason why flouride should be added to tap water?, I know of a few but none have anything to do with health of the consumer.

Here's a documentary on the subject if anybody is interested in educating themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh-oeu2L8yM

jh79

stuar wrote: »

There is no reason whatsoever to add flouride to drinking water, healthy teeth my b0llox, I've been over this a few times over the years, for the people who still buy the healthy teeth crap, is there any other reason why flouride should be added to tap water?, I know of a few but none have anything to do with health of the consumer.

Here's a documentary on the subject if anybody is interested in educating themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh-oeu2L8yM

Fluoride is known to prevent tooth cavaties, whether a low dose in the water supply is effective is a bit trickier to ascertain. In the uk Birmingham has less cavaties then Manchester and this attributed to fluoridation.

But for me the more important issue is whether it is toxic at low doses and there is nothing to suggest that it is. Seeing that there hasn't been any new research in the last few years I'm assuming the video is a rehash of the usual stuff on fluoride alert ie the fallacy that the fluoride we add is not natural, papers that show toxicity but without mentioning only at high concs and tenuous links to cancer / pineal gland etc without explaining that no real conclusions can be draw because of the many variables. With this being a controversial subject for 60 years tou would think they would have a body of evidence alot more compelling.

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

Is there enough evidence to suggest that a study of this scope and scale is necessary? I don't think so. Studies to date have not convinced the Irish, US or UK scientific advisors have they? Any country that has ceases fluoridation done so for ethical reasons or in the case of Belgium because the green party were involved.

The precautionary principle puts the onus on state to prove that it does not harm infants that are washed in and drink fluoridated water. Asbestos and tabacco harm deniers hung on for a long time. Not only are there career fluoridationists and serious money, but also stateclaims.ie does not want to pay out.

jh79 wrote: »

Fluoride is known to prevent tooth cavaties,

You misquote evidence. Fluoride applied directly onto oral bacterial sites prevents that bacterial consuming sugars, multiplying and erroding enamel. Drinking fluoride has no effect as the amount in the saliva is too minute to be noticed and the drunk water passes straight into the stomach as it is washed down with other substances with so much sugars that the bacteria overcome the small amount of fluoried in the water (brushing with a pea sized amount of fluoride at 1450ppm would clear all the bacteria out) . All the while only 50% of the fluoride is excreted, storing 50% of the fluoride in your bones replacing the calcium that should be there or killing off all your gut flora/bacteria damaging your vagnus nerve system (http://www.pnas.org/content/109/4/E175.full). Fluoride is a negative ion halogen like chloride or iodide not an alkali like calcium (http://elements.wlonk.com/Elements_Pics_11x8.5.pdf).

Whenever you loose a part of an argument you switch and bate. You accept the sources you choose and then trivialise others with the same validity solely because the evidence does not suit your policy (deriding youtube and supporting unreferenced wiki entries). You do not post in dental or scientific debate areas with links to evidence. I initially thought troll. However, looking through your posts (mostly during working hours) and lack of rationality I am going to say sock puppet for pharma. You show some knowledge of prescription drugs, you initially offered advice but slacked off very quickly. Most of your posts are pro-pharma industry, anti-public servants, pro-GMO, anti-organic, anti-vaccination choice, anti-water choice. You vitriolicly defend water fluoridation with no clear reason other than stating that you are frustrated. This is not standard troll behaviour.

@jh79 come clean - you work for pharma and are a part time sock puppet

jh79

@Treora

How do you prove it does not harm? An assay or test for safety doesn't exist. You prove safety by testing at what levels it is toxic. Show me a paper that shows toxicity below 10ppm.

If fluoride is as toxic as you claim it would be logical that it's acute toxicity would be at a reasonably low dose, this is not the case. Long term studies are few and far between, especially good quality ones, but none have shown toxicity at levels that have made anybody but the usual alt medicine types sit up and take notice.

I take it you believe the fact that this is a non-event outside of the CT and alt medicine worlds that there is some major cover-up for some bizarre reasons.

By the way when I post is none of your business, also I am pro-science which obviously means that I know the fears regarding vaccinations were unfounded, the genetic modifications as a science is nothing to fear.

Just so you know, organic chemistry is the study of compounds containing oxygen , carbon and nitrogen. To be anti-organic and a scientist would be impossible. Calcium Fluoride is not organic by the way, does that make it toxic by default???

I defend water fluoridation because there are very few scientifically valid reasons not too.

I imagine if I check your post history I would find support of the usual nonsense like homeopathy, magic cures for cancer ie colloidal silver, Vit C and big pharma paranoia.

jh79

http://www.adajournal.com/content/144/1/65.full#corresp-1

This recent paper wants dentists to promote fluoridation more. The following is a quote from the paper;

"no systematic reviews of the literature have shown any negative health effects form ingestion of water fluoridated in or near this therapeutic range"

The therapeutic range is 0.7 - 1.2 ppm.

So did the author miss something?

maringo

I think a European Citizens Initiative on the grounds of public health would be difficult to achieve because of the sheer numbers of people required.

I also think a scientific study of the urine flouride levels of people consuming flouride would be interesting. It might go some way to reassuring people or making them aware of the levels and might highlight any danger signs or otherwise.

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

Studies to date have not convinced the Irish, US or UK scientific advisors have they?

Ridiculous claim and desperate repetition.

Career fluoridationists and vested interests have not found a reason to end their careers! Instead they double down in desperation http://www.adajournal.com/content/144/1/65.full#corresp-1

We have seen this before: http://www.thejournal.ie/the-anglo-tapes-9-jaw-dropping-quotes-from-before-the-bailout-964097-Jun2013/

jh79 wrote: »

In the uk Birmingham has less cavaties then Manchester and this attributed to fluoridation.

Farcical as there is no empirical proof. 'Attributed' is as scientific as pixie dust.
As all countries that you have referenced have a higher DMFT than Sweden they have no credibility.

jh79 wrote: »

How do you prove it does not harm? An assay or test for safety doesn't exist.

Utter nonsense. Claiming that the limits of scientific research have been met. Design a test using the scientific method.

It is the task of those that put the fluoride in the water that it does no long term damage not those that have to drink it to prove that it does not harm them. Many a doctor supported tobacco. And a lowering of stress in mothers was attributed by the American Medical Association, which it has since reverted its position. The obligation is on you to prove to everyone your point that it is safe to fluoridate water in the long term for infant health. You have failed.


You are avoiding the purpose of water fluoridation, which is to provide the fewest cavities to a nation. This system has failed. Sweden's system of education is the proven and cheaper winner.

Your reference to authority

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.adajournal.com/content/144/1/65.full#corresp-1"no systematic reviews of the literature have shown any negative health effects form ingestion of water fluoridated in or near this therapeutic range" The therapeutic range is 0.7 - 1.2 ppm.

Faith healer magic, "therapeutic range" this entry level babble is without a single paper on a clinical or empirical study in a peer reviewed journal such as science, nature or the lancet.

My reference to authority
"In countries such as the Scandinavian countries, where public dental awareness is very high and alternative vehicles for fluoride (e.g. tooth paste) are widely available and widely used, a decision not to replace fluoride removed from the dinking water would be of no consequence."
www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientsindw.pdf
Profs Helen Whelton & Dennis O'Mullane

Again you have failed. Back to the circular logic and repititious argument

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

Instead of pretending that fluoride is banned in some countries

Childish trivialisation. Prove anyone of your points pharma sock puppet.

Treora

maringo wrote: »

I think a European Citizens Initiative on the grounds of public health would be difficult to achieve because of the sheer numbers of people required.

right2water.eu has already passed its milestones in many countries. I more simple that it sounds. And the water initiative does no preclude the banning that addition of a chemical. Just sign up and ask that specific water purity criteria are included.

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

No new evidence.

Laughable throw away comment.

No new evidence for gravity, but the original work is still referenced and correct.

maringo

This guy seems to know his stuff

maringo

Treora wrote: »

right2water.eu has already passed its milestones in many countries. I more simple that it sounds. And the water initiative does no preclude the banning that addition of a chemical. Just sign up and ask that specific water purity criteria are included.

Thanks Treora. Will have a look there.

jh79

Mullins and Carmody both have articles published on the HSE website which state that no evidence exists of health issues with water fluoridated to levels of 0.7ppm are you saying they are wrong?

The paper I linked to earlier from 2013 all states this. What studies did they miss that show conclusive evidence and direct links between low level water fluoridation and specific disease types? Can you suggest a reasonable explanation on how they missed this evidence?

I see from your posts in another forum that you have an interest in the effectiveness of fluoridation but to honest I'm only interested in its toxicity. If the dental association of the US, Ireland and UK, WHO , US surgeon general and CDC are happy with its effectiveness then I'll take there word for it. But nothing I have read causes me any concern with its safety.

jh79

Treora wrote: »

Laughable throw away comment.

No new evidence for gravity, but the original work is still referenced and correct.

The evidence was taken into consideration by the irish fluoride forum set up by the minister in 2000? If it wasn't convincing then why would it be now?

The 2013 review I linked to would of had this info as would of Mullens and Carmody. It wasn't enough so new evidence is required.

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.adajournal.com/content/144/1/65.full#corresp-1
So did the author miss something?

Yes, the objective is to have the fewest cavities .i.e. to beat Sweden. Yet the paper fails to mention Sweden. It does mention that cultural attitudes are the reason why dentists support water fluoridation. The countries that are producing weak surveys are English speaking and this is the culture of proliferation of a value system that is proven flawed. A culture in dentistry education that is dogmatic and non-scientific (intolerance to scientific enquiry - avoids the precautionary principle). Instead of training students on Sweden's success based on using its limited resources with a population spread over a massive area relative to its GDP and is still better than USA/UK/Ireland/Australia, where dentists are trained to support a single view. Inspite of that at least a third of dentists in the most ferverant of fluoridationist countries see education over ignorance as the solution.

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

The evidence was taken into consideration by the forum setup in 2000? If it wasn't convincing then why would it be now?

That forum's chair:
"In countries such as the Scandinavian countries, where public dental awareness is very high and alternative vehicles for fluoride (e.g. tooth paste) are widely available and widely used, a decision not to replace fluoride removed from the dinking water would be of no consequence."
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_...rientsindw.pdf
Prof Dennis O'Mullane

Also the forum never sought clinical or empirical evidence of safety. It asked the questions it wanted to hear the answers to and it was a deal by trust worthy Michael Martin and career fluoridationists for a vote/funding swap. The 2000 forum has been throughly debunked.

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

Mullins and Carmody both have articles published on the HSE website which state that no evidence exists of health issues with water fluoridated to levels of 0.7ppm are you saying they are wrong?

Again you refuse to display the precautionary principle and offer no links to peer reviewed articles in the lancet, nature, science... You have failed again.

Keep digging in desperation.