Why fluoride-phobia refuses to go away
November 17, 2010 - 6:01pm
“My greatest fear here is with the advent of the Internet, and with the advent of social media, that a small vocal minority of individuals who are perhaps misinformed are able to reach a great number of people.” So said dentist Harry Hoediono, the incoming head of the Ontario Dental Association, in response to this week’s news that Waterloo, Ont.’s council has voted to stop fluoridating the city’s water supply.
Dr. Hoediono is correct when he says that anti-fluoridation activists are “misinformed”: Fluoride is a safe additive that helps protect billions of Canadian teeth — particularly those owned by poor people who can’t afford proper dental care. But it’s wrong to suggest that this phenomenon is a creature of the Internet. In fact, anti-fluoridation quackery has been with us, in one form of the other, since the early days of the Cold War. And Waterloo, Ont. is hardly the first town that these quacks have conned.
Read it here.
Yep.
I'm surprised he didn't mention Dr. Strangelove!
I think one can read this column, substitute "vaccination" for "fluoridation" in nearly every occurrance, and it's still lucid and sensible.
Yep.
- and there will always, in modern societies, be a substantial majority who will believe whatever garbage the Authorities tell them, to avoid having to take a stand of any sort against tyranny, or to avoid having to think for themselves.
And those who can figure out the difference seem to be the smallest minority of all.
That was insulting, siamdave. Actually, I have looked at the issue, have done my reading and you know what? The objectors ARE NOT CREDIBLE. The evidence doesn't line up. It's got zip to do with accepting without questioning or "tyrrany" and everything to do with boogie-men under the bed.
Tell the difference? You can't discern the difference between con artists and public health professionals.
Yet no fluoride in Europe an dpeople in addition to bnot being fat actually get out and stand up for themselves, here where there is fluoride people are overweight, lazy and in a daze and uniformed of the issues around them. Basically fluoride has turned people in North America into lazy cattle.
I think this has been mentioned before, possibly by me, but it does strike me as interesting and sad that discontent and suspicion (for which there is good reason!) gets diverted into harmless (from the standpoint of the ruling class) byways like this.
I try to keep this sort of thing out of my house. All the jerking knees scuff up the walls.
What's the actual data on flouridation? Is there a higher incidence of tooth decay in Montreal and Vancouver than in other Canadian cities?
That was insulting, siamdave. Actually, I have looked at the issue, have done my reading and you know what? The objectors ARE NOT CREDIBLE. The evidence doesn't line up. It's got zip to do with accepting without questioning or "tyrrany" and everything to do with boogie-men under the bed.
Tell the difference? You can't discern the difference between con artists and public health professionals.
- I wasn't talking about the fluoride in particular - I was responding to your *general* statement that "..There always will be a radicalized group in every society that rejects mainstream science in favour of a fringe narrative that taps into their private anxieties."
And I think my rebuttal was actually much truer - there are a few people who reject mainstream science in favor of whatever beliefs - but there are many more who have been trained to NOT think about anything, but accept what they are told by 'experts' about 'science' or anything else. And those people are a great deal more worrying than the few true fringies who reject any science in favor of whatever superstitions, because our society is currently being run by people who do NOT believe in truth or science, but only in getting and maintaining power - and they are more than capable of corrupting scientists or anyone else in pursuit of that power.
I forget the exact figure, but something like 60% of Americans still believe Saddam had nukes, and conspired with Osama to do 911. Not to mention that most Americans apparently believe we all live in igloos. We have at least several MPs in Canada who believe the earth is ~5000 year old, and early man walked that earth with dinosaurs (not talking about science, but about the things people believe) Science or scientists are not gods - they offer their opinions about things, opinions which *should* be learned sorts of things of course and based upon knowledge and study - but which may be wrong for any number of reasons - including political.
The corruption of science is one of the more egregious things the political-economic system known as 'capitalism' has to answer for. Or religions such as the Catholic church, of coursse.
That so few people seem to actually understand this means things are not looking that good for us all these days.
No wonder people keep demanding the stopping of watter fluoridation.
What is being put into our drinking water is toxic chimney scrubbings, which include along with industrial grade fluoride, lead, arsenic and other nasty things. This is a waste product from the process of turning potash into fertilizer.
There are only 8 countries that still fluoridate over 50% of their water, most countries rejected it long ago because it has been shown that communities that fluoridate their water have seen their cavity rates fall just as fast as those communities that don't. Quebec (which doesn't fluoridate) has just as good teeth as Ontario (which does fluoridate). Vancouver doesn't fluoridtate, but their teeth are as good or better than Toronto that does. The reason for this is likely that the only value from fluoride is topical application...and most of us get that from toothpaste.
Fluoride, particularly the industrial waste stuff, should never be ingested...it has been liked to dental fluorisis (suffered now by as many as 30% of children), skeletal fluorosis (feels like arthritis), thyroid and kidney problems. Even the American dental Association agrees that infants should never be given formula made up with fluoridated water. The Canadian Green Party also just announced they supported the end of Water Fluoridation.
All of this has been documented over the years, and is no doubt why now citizens are demanding their municipalities stop the practice. A recent book launch in Canada, called the Case Against Fluoride, by Dr Paul Connett documents in detail what fluoride and fluoridation does, and does not do.
If you want the facts I suggest buying Dr Connett's book.
I don't think I'll buy a book about it.
I just want to know what data the flouride supporters here are basing their arguments on.
I don't think I'll buy a book about it.
I just want to know what data the flouride supporters here are basing their arguments on.
- you could check out your library, inter library loan should be able to get it - if the guy has written a book there should be lots of facts and refs to help you decide if he makes a good case or not -
I would actually rather hear it from the flouride supporters here on Babble, some of whom apparently have done their own research on it.
Or just believe that the many, many reputable researchers who've come to the conclusion that fluoridation isn't harmful aren't the bought and paid for stooges of Big Fluoride.
Sometimes it's appropriate to acknowledge that you're not a biomedical researcher. Not that I wouldn't love to have ten years or so to bring myself up to speed, but since I don't I'm not going to "go with my feelings", Jenny McCarthy style.
I'm not asking for the data on why or how flouride in the water supply isn't harmful. I'm asking for the data that shows why or how its presence in the water supply is beneficial. So, for example, if the link between water flouridation and tooth health is as direct as flouride supporters claim, then, in non-water-flouridated cities, such as Vancouver and Montreal, we would expect to see higher rates of tooth decay, would we not? Is this the case?
Which is why I'm asking you for the data you're basing your support on. Not what your feelings are on the subject.
To see the view on this from Dr Hardy Limeback, head of preventive dentistry at U of T, go to
http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm
to see the worldwide data on cavity rates in countries that do vs don't fluoridate, over time, go to
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html
The results are undeniable....cavity rates have been falling everywhere...so fluoridation has no good purpose.
Unfortunately it has been linked to some very bad things.
Yeah, me too. I am undecided about this fluoride issue. I'd also like to hear from fluoride supporters, if they have information on the beneficial effects of putting fluoride in the water.
Uh, data analysis is actually part of research, and as I said, I'm not a researcher. Beyond that, if you want primary data, you'll need to hunt your own snipe.
Here's some research, including data, from the American Dental Association. Does that help? Or are they in the pocket of Big Fluoride? Or better yet, have you identified critical flaws in their research methodology?
I am afraid the American Dental Association have been breathing their own exhaust on this issue so long that they are unable to open their mind to what the most recent data is telling them.
97% of Europeans no longer have fluoridated water, and their teeth continue to get better (see WHO data referenced in previous blog). Stopping fluoridation is supported by the European dental associations....are they wrong?
The most recent book "The Case Against Fluoride" has over 80 pages of references to worldwide and North American studies, reports and surveys showing the latest data. You can see much of this, including materials criticising the ADA at www.fluoridealert.org
That site will answer most questions...
This is highly deceptive. You make it sound as it fluoridation has been stopped in Europe for safety reasons ("banned in Europe" is one of the main talking points of the anti-fluoridation crowd).
In much of continental Europe, they make use of fluoridated salt rather than fluoridated water.
The Europeans (for the most part) decided against it.
When one realizes that the only benefit is topical, and that ingestion of fluoride has been linked to health problems...not to mention that it is a toxic waste and has things like lead, cadmium and arsenic in it!
It seems to me just common sense to stop putting in our water.
Once again, it has been shown to do no good...possibly it does us harm...why can't our water just be water?
Once again, it has been shown to do no good...possibly it does us harm...why can't our water just be water?
Is the flouride in the drinking water the same flouride that is found in toothpaste? And if so, why are they adding to drinking water the same chemicals that they warn you not to swallow on the toothpaste tube?
I am afraid the American Dental Association have been breathing their own exhaust on this issue so long that they are unable to open their mind to what the most recent data is telling them.
There's a reason why reputable research must be summarily dismissed?
Gee. I did not see that coming.
"- and there will always, in modern societies, be a substantial majority who will believe whatever garbage the Authorities tell them, to avoid having to take a stand of any sort against tyranny, or to avoid having to think for themselves."
I think that is interesting to keep in mind.
I believe having fluoride in your toothpaste is still required to be approved by the CDA. I tried to inquiry a few years ago as to why, if it's so important to healthy teeth and required for CDA approval so few tooth paste brands include it. Perhaps 2-3 brands of tooth paste is about the maximum complexity the average consumer is willing to accept and the rest of the toothpastes are marketing to the cynical and critical choice lovers. A friend of mine did an article a few years ago mentioning some of the possible effects of toothpaste ingredients and the wide variety of choices out there(see pg.7) and the idea the things you put in your mouth are readily absorbed into your body.
Whatever your verdict is on the usefulness of fluoride I am personally one of those critical choice lovers who would like to be able to choose if I am going to ingest fluoride or not. I'd appreciate that as much as I like being able to choose amongst a large variety of tooth pastes or being able to buy salt that doesn't have sugar in it if I so choose.
Why are the alien believers, 9-11 truthers, cell-phone Jeremiahs, and those in the anti-fluoride temperance movement always the same people?
Do some folks get their kicks from thinking there are dark forces constantly conspiring against them?
Do some folks get their kicks from thinking there are dark forces constantly conspiring against them?
It might be one factor. In this situation too I'd personally prefer more choice. Can you come up with a list of at least 5 reasons so I can choose al?
I'd choose:
But me. Well I'm different. I'm not like other folks. Yep, I was grass fed as a child thus evading the effects of #4. For me it's more having people experiencing things like this on my facebook friends list that has reduced my respect for unquestionable authority.
Interesting link.
It's odd that we don't have a Canadian version of the Michigan Militia...or do we?
Fluoridation of water is the most monstrous communist plot ever conceived. Your commie has no regard for human life, not even of his own.
Here's some research, including data, from the American Dental Association. Does that help? Or are they in the pocket of Big Fluoride? Or better yet, have you identified critical flaws in their research methodology?
I don't know, this "fact" sheet cites six primary studies (and three reviews), three of which were from the '60s, and two of the three more recent ones whose methods were called into question. The last one was a study as much of fluorosis and dental sealants as fluoridation, and the conclusions of which use curiously qualified terms, such as: "average dental decay experience" [being] 61 - 100% higher in communities with "low fluoride levels" .
This is from the American Dental Association. It seems to me they could have a lot more recent and better data to offer, especially in our own case, with two major Canadian cities being non-fluoridated.
Some criticisms of two of the more often cited studies:
The often-cited Anglesey fluoridation surveys are re-examined as a case study. In the 1974 and 1983 surveys, the non-random choice of a "control," 19 years after fluoridation, negated the benefit of blind examinations. Instead of a longitudinal controlled trial, there remain two cross-sectional surveys for which the test population was mainly rural while the "control" population was entirely urban. Two different categories of secular reduction in caries, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, occurred between 1974 and 1983. So, It is doubtful that these Anglesey studies, or the earlier 1955-1967 study, provide evidence of large benefits from fluoridation.
On the study of 40,000 schoolchildren across the U.S., cited by the ADA, using Brunelle and Carlos:
This study and other recent studies (3-8) show that there is currently no significant difference in tooth decay rates in F and NF areas and that decreases in tooth decay rates over the last 25 years have been comparable regardless of fluoridation status.
...
Recently Brunelle (30), using the same database that we used, reported 260/o fewer dfs (decayed and filled deciduous tooth surfaces) in children who had always resided in F communities than those who never lived in F communities. This finding agrees reasonably well with the data outlined in our Table 3, which shows a statistically significantly lower dft rate in life-long 5-year-old
residents of fluoridated areas. However, by omission of age-specific data, the Brunelle study covers up the fact that this difference in tooth decay is no longer significant in 6-year-olds and disappears entirely among 8-year olds
...
Another recent study by Brunelle and Carlos, which also uses the in the F areas. the study of 65 same database that we used, reports a l7,7Vo lower DMFS rate. This study has a number of major deficiencies which render the study of little or no value.
It contains extremely serious errors...
It fails to report the tooth decay rates for each of the E4 geographical areas surveyed...
It fails to control for geographical differences in tooth decay rates...
It fails to do the statistical analysis (or even provide the data, i.e. the standard deviation and sample number) to determine whether the values found for F and NF areas are significantly different...
It fails to report the data for the approximately 23,000 schoolchildren who were not life-time residents of either the F or NF areas...
Why are the alien believers, 9-11 truthers, cell-phone Jeremiahs, and those in the anti-fluoride temperance movement always the same people?
Do some folks get their kicks from thinking there are dark forces constantly conspiring against them?
Ah! I see what you're getting at now. It's just that we have this choice.
We can take seriously what public health doctors and medical researchers not in the hire of a cell phone industry have to say about actual medical studies on cell phones and human health, albeit widespread cell phone use is still in the early stages since the mid 1990s or so. Or?
Or we can take the word of anonymous social forum babblers, like al-Qa'bong, that children are not at any risk whatsoever for developing deadly brain tumors later in life and on the same side of their heads as their heavy cell phone use.
We can consider the opinions of 1350+ certified architects and engineers with more than 25000 years of on the job experience concerning certain events of 9/11 as well as several 9/11 Commissioners themselves and a number of US Government whistleblowers.
Or we might be persuaded toward crazy George II and the FBI-CIA's version of 9/11 events by several very knowledgeable and reputable anonymous and self-described experts on the matter, and at least of one of whom experiences technical difficulties logging into babbble from time to time.
And WRT the subject of unidentified flying objects, fufos and the like, we have a number of former astronauts, world leaders, retired air force and army officials from a number of countries and some still employed by government, air traffic controllers, commercial pilots, police officers, and everyday ordinary people who swear that what events they have witnessed defy scientific and rational explanation.
Or we can turn to the ever anonymous and often cynical internet experts on babble and even the very dubious JREF forums where armchair debunkerists are encouraged to discuss physics and science in general from a lay point of view and driven by their intuition and instinctual understanding of nature and current events in general. As I always say, it's all about choices.
Dr. Hoediono, who was ever present as a lobbyist for the ODA during the Waterloo campaign, was careful to preface his characterization of the Fluoride Free Waterloo members as misinformed with "perhaps". Jon Kay, who didn't interview anyone in Waterloo and certainly never read any of the science presented by the group, had no such decorum. There was some doubt in the good dentist's mind, especially as he had been avoiding the persistent requests of one of the Waterloo councillors for ODA to provide her with scientific evidence of benefit related to intake and proof of safety of the chemical actually used (a toxic hazardous waste called fluorosilic acid). Another Waterloo resident had conducted FOIA requests that yielded evidence of incompetence and wrongdoing by public health officials and coverup of fluoridation overfeeds and extended interruptions when the chemical was not added at all. There was evidence that lead at the tap dropped sharply during the fluoride interruptions. City hall was equipped with a high grade water filter due to poor water quality while the city spent money to promote tap water over bottled water. The Waterloo public was DISinformed - by the ODA, the mayor, and the Waterloo health officials. Not "perhaps".
The real issue is the anti-democratic sentiment that only those with the "right" beliefs should have input into their municipal public agenda. Frankly, it's no one else's business if a majority of Waterloo voters decide they don't want industrial waste fluoride in their tap water.
I've read compelling arguments for the idea that stupid behaviour is the only true proof of autonomy and free will. Doing what makes the most sense, as an organism, could be autonomy or it could be instinct. But doing what's wrong... that can only be explained by autonomy.
Right and wrong, good and evil, and autonomy. Wow.
So, again, Snert, I'll have to ask you where the data is on the benefits of water fluoridation. If you want to push water fluoridation, you better have some pretty compelling stats to back it up. I'm sure you didn't really mean to suggest that a few studies from 40+ years ago is the entire body of evidence you're basing your opinion on.
Why don't you start with the Canadian Dental Association? What studies do they cite?
Why don't you start with the Canadian Dental Association? What studies do they cite?
The same ones, only they add "eh?" to the end of every other sentence.
Beyond that you'll need to hunt your own snipe. I'm finally -- slowly -- learning not to get dragged down that path. It's like discussing evolution with a Creationist. You can bring anything you wish to that discussion and it's just not going to matter. The day that a conspiracy theorist -- any conspiracy theorist -- says "I guess I got the wrong end of this" then maybe I'll change my mind. But I should really believe that if I can find a CDA study that says fluoridation is safe then you'll say "Oh, OK, good enough then" and not "Big surprise, CDA is in the pocket of Big Fluoride!!"?
I'm finally -- slowly -- learning not to get dragged down that path.
Down the path of providing evidence for your belief in the benefits of water fluoridation? You want us to accept this on faith?
If you can't actually produce any evidence unequivocally demonstrating that water fluoridation reduces the incidence of caries, then what basis do you have for calling others "wrong" and comparing them to Creationists? You're just as much operating on faith as you accuse others of -- in fact, moreso, as they at least appear to have done some research.
I'll ask you again: what evidence do you have that water fluoridation has any benefit whatsoever? If you can't answer this question, you might want to consider that, just possiby, you don't have enough knowledge to be offering an informed opinion, let alone be mocking others for theirs.
On the extent of water fluordiation (this refutes the "banned in Europe" line):
http://bfsweb.org/One%20in%20a%20million/7%20extent.pdf
A critique of the "50 reasons to oppose fluoridation":
http://www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/0703/m50721_v1_50reasonsreplytotal.pdf
A critical examination of anti-fluoridationist literature, from an Australian public health journal
http://www.be-md.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2222595/
How about something on why we would put fluoride in our water supply in the first place? Is this really so hard to produce?
A critique of the "50 reasons to oppose fluoridation":
http://www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/0703/m50721_v1_50reasonsreplytotal.pdf
McDonagh et al., cited in the above report, is a review of all the old studies that were done. This is not a new study. Their conclusions:
Results
214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries.
Conclusions
The evidence of a beneficial reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis.
Analysis
We included 214 studies; none was of evidence level A (high quality, bias unlikely). The study designs used included 45 controlled before-after studies, 102 cross sectional studies, 47 ecological studies, 13 cohort (prospective or retrospective) studies, and seven case-control studies.
There was significant heterogeneity among the included studies...
Comments
The most serious defect of the studies of possible beneficial effects of water fluoridation was the lack of appropriate design and analysis. Many studies did not present an analysis at all, while others did not attempt to control for potentially confounding factors. Age, sex, social class, ethnicity, country, tooth type (primary or permanent), mean daily regional temperature, use of fluoride, total fluoride consumption, method of measurement (clinical exam or radiographs, or both), and training of examiners are all possible confounding factors in the assessment of development of dental caries.
While some of these studies were conducted in the 1940s and 50s, before the common use of such analyses, later studies also failed to use methods that were then commonplace. Many studies lacked any measure of variance for the estimates of caries presented....
Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken. As such, this review should provide both researchers and commissioners of research with an overview of the methodological limitations of previous research.
What this study adds
A systematic review of water fluoridation reveals that the quality of the evidence is low...
Overall, reductions in the incidence of caries were found, but they were smaller than previously reported.
The prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) is highly associated with the concentration of fluoride in drinking water. An association of water fluoride with other adverse effects was not found
How about something on why we would put fluoride in our water supply in the first place? Is this really so hard to produce?
No. Here's the York University (UK) study..
Here's the Australian govt. study.
Here are National Academy of Sciences studies over several decades.
Lots more here.
Now I'll go hunt for scientific studies that it gets lighter in the room when you switch on a lamp...
Read my post above, Unionist. This was a review, commonly cited by fluoridationists, of all the old studies. I think you'll find all of your links somehow relate back to that report.
So where's your hard evidence that overturns what you dismiss as "old studies"?
Um, I just posted it.
Read my post above, Unionist. This was a review, commonly cited by fluoridationists, of all the old studies. I think you'll find all of your links somehow relate back to that report.
I've got no dog in this fight. You asked for studies about the benefits of fluoride in water supplies - I posted some. I thought you wanted to read them.
I have.
Which are Babblers more interested in? Reading what the actual evidence says? Or appearing to be "right"?
Which are Babblers more interested in? Reading what the actual evidence says? Or appearing to be "right"?
Good question. When it comes to fluoridation, my main interest was to appear to be helpful. I'll bow out now.
Cancelling fluoridation programs in municipal water supplies is futile.
The water "remembers" the fluoride ions and thus it has an even greater effect than before.
Homeofluoropathy!!!
It should be noted that "quality" has a specific and somewhat different meaning when speaking of research papers. Quality refers to how closely the protocol of the research adheres to certain standards. For instance, according to one commonly-used scale, we speak of a randomized controlled trial having high quality when it is randomized and the method of randomization is described, there is double-blinding and the method of double-blinding is described, and there is a description of withdrawals and drop-outs.
Medical research papers are written in a much more systematic way than in the past. By modern standards, most studies published before, say, 1990 are of poor quality by today's standards. Doesn't mean that the research was sloppy or the data are invalid - just means that if we wrote those papers today, we'd write them in a much more detailed and specific way.
From jas' link:
That's consistent with what we know. I have mild fluorosis, consisting of "white caps," or white spots on some of my molars, probably caused by my mom's over-enthusiastic administration of fluoride supplements when I was wee (I once ate an entire bottle of vitamins with fluoride, an event people were rather sanguine about in the 1960s.) Mild fluorosis is preferable to rotten teeth or no teeth, IMV.
The water "remembers" the fluoride ions and thus it has an even greater effect than before.
Cancelling fluoridation programs in municipal water supplies is futile.
The water "remembers" the fluoride ions and thus it has an even greater effect than before.
Actually, it is fairly amusing to consider the similarities between the claims of homeopathy and the claims of fluoridationists, if we consider how it would be possible that putting fluoride in the water supply could do any good. It doesn't make sense to me, for example, that such a minute presence in a vast water supply, somehow low enough to be "harmless" but high enough to be effective, with all its interactions with various other chemicals, with all the elements it encounters in its route to our water glass, and then the probability of those levels to fluctuate at any given time of day, and then to be flushed past our teeth in the space of a gulp--I can't think of a stupider, less efficient way to apply a topical treatment. Can you? Well, maybe cloud-seeding would be less efficient.
And, given that we can see that the studies done on it are far from unanimous, are largely outdated, and are considered to be very poor research, I guess our Babble fluoridationists have nothing useful to say on the matter.
Here's a pretty convincing Canadian survey of studies in dental journals, along with a report on a double-blind trial.
So fluoridation gets criticized because it's "poison" and "toxic waste", and then gets ridiculed because such a paltry amount of it is being dumped into the water supply! It's an argument you can't lose!
Frankly, I'm far more concerned with what the municipal water authorities are going to do about the horrifying fact that that every glass of water they supply contains at least one molecule that once passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell.
Here's a pretty convincing Canadian survey of studies in dental journals, along with a report on a double-blind trial.
Yup. That's about the extent of it! FTR, my money was on the pretty blonde girl. Just shows how much our assumptions about things can be wrong...
Did you notice the gun hanging on the wall at 1:19? There's a lot more going on in that video than meets the eye.
Interesting that the same people here who are the fluoridationists, the anti-homeopathy crusaders, the pandemic believers, the mass vaccinationists, and the ones who would suspend laws of physics for one historic day in order to explain the disintegration of the WTC buildings are also the ones who claim to speak from and defend the scientific approach to fact gathering. But their arguments are never about facts. They are always, always, always merely arguments from authority - nothing else.
Never mind "open-mindedness". How about making an effort first of all to understand from what basis you're arguing?
I had my scheduled check up and cleaning today, complete with that plastic frame gaggy flouride thing. When it was all done I asked my dentist what her thoughts were on adding flouride to drinking water. She told me that she didn't think it made a difference, as long as a person brushed and looked after their teeth they were more likely to maintain good dental health. Typical dentist answer - she sure seemed NOT to feel strongly either way. I live on an acreage so there is nothing added to my water, and we don't generally have any cavities. I think diet and good brushing habits are probably the answer.
edited to add: ya, I know that's just anecdotal. The only reason I posted was because as far as I know we don't have any dentists contributing to this thread, and I thought it was handy that I had to see mine today and I could get input from a real doctor. She wasn't much help though, sort of "oh, yes. You should either use it or not...."
Just always trust it even though we're always getting reports years later about the fuck ups they make. But nah, we won't make the same mistakes over again in the pursuit of profit, would we?
The government has the biggest homeopathy scam going. And I'm not talking about flouride but you're all buying it.
What is this not "flouride" homeopathy stuff and how is it relevant? At least spell fluoride correctly. I thought this thread was about the vitriolic attack by Jonathan Kay on the voters in Waterloo who changed a municipal policy, to stop adding a CEPA-regulated Class 1 hazardous, persistent, bioaccumulative environmental toxin containing arsenic, other heavy metals and trace radionuclides to their finite-resource aquifer derived drinking water that gets discharged into the Grand River with fluoride in exceedence of the Canadian Water Quality Guideline? The CWQG found that aquatic keystone organisms in the food chain such as Daphnia, dragonfly larvae, salmon and hatchlings are affected adversely in terms of reproductive success by fluoride in low-calcium fresh surface water at the level of 0.25 mg/L, so they set the recommendation at 0.12 to protect low-calcium northern surface fresh water bodies and rivers. But Health Canada doesn't want to know about Environment Canada's science on cumulative fluoride toxicity to living organisms and ecosystems because it would make them look stupid and out of touch with reality. Canadians aren't living organisms and drinking water is not part of the ecosystem.
It's hazardous waste. No, it's magic tooth medicine! It's an endocrine disruptor. No, it's magic tooth medicine! It's an environmental calcium robber. No, it's magic tooth medicine! It suppresses thyroid function, sperm motility and hemoglobin synthesis. No, it's magic tooth medicine! Whack, whack, don't you dare say otherwise.
Spelling flames are lame. Just saying.
Thanks for putting us back on track, Nutrimom, and thanks for your information. Certain Babblers have a tendency to be "concerned" about issues that are not their business, especially when it involves innocent consumers who might be led astray by "quacks". I think we've shown who the quacks are (again) in this case.
Not intended as flame. Sorry if taken as such. But not as lame as flaming all of us as buyers of government homeopathy scam without explaining what that even means.
I wish facts could carry the day. But when discussing conspiracies, facts don't count if:
- they're from a source that's "clearly in the pocket of Big _______!"
- they've been contradicted by Jenny McCarthy's gut feelings
- they're not in alignment with a conspiracy theorist's "common sense"
- they've ever been reported by the mainstream media
- they don't support the conspiracy in question
But if you have some primary data that you've collected, feel free to share and we can all analyze it.
Snert, do you think Nutrimoms post regarding the findings of the CWQG is not factual? I have no reason to disbelieve what she says, and that information alone should give a flouride-in-drinking-water promoter pause. We are an arrogant species that generally refuses to think long term, but in the face of evidence that our habits are adversely affecting other species - don't you think that perhaps we need to look beyond our own (selfish) desire to have perfect teeth? (Not saying that I think flouride offers perfect teeth, just that people who want flouride in the drinking water feel that way).
I can't believe I just spelled fluoride wrong in that post.
That fluoride harms dragonfly larvae? It could very well be factual. But now *that's* the argument?
Beyond that, she seems to immediately jump to "Canada's science on cumulative fluoride toxicity to living organisms" and I get the funny feeling that I'm supposed to believe that if it's harmful to an insect's larva, it's harmful to me too.
By that logic, chocolate -- which is harmful to dogs -- must be harmful to us.
Well, that should be at least part of the argument don't you think?
It would be best addressed as its own argument. If fluoridated wastewater is harming bugs, we'd probably want to look into treatment of that wastewater. Making it part of the same argument is likely to make people ignore that solution in favour of the solution they *really* want (which isn't better effluent treatment).
edited to add:
Hormones in waste water are, evidently, affecting fish. Should we (well, women, not *me*) give up birth control pills and hormone replacement therapies? Not to mention transpeople?
Or should we look into better wastewater treatment?
The dosage of chocolate (as in man-made processed confection) in mg/kg/day harmful to dogs depends on the amount of sugar, transfats and cocoa mass in the chocolate and genetics, size, age and nutrition status of the dog. Oh, gee, the same things that apply to dosing PEOPLE with FLUORIDE. Except fluoride is cumulative in the body and the environment and chocolate is not. Chocolate is also toxic to seagulls. Chocolate should not be added to drinking water and downstream environment if it could harm some dogs and gulls who can't avoid it, don't you think?
Chocolate is harmful to infants - the immature liver metabolizes caffeine-like compounds poorly. Fluoride is harmful to infants with low iodine intake at dosage of 0.01 mg/kg/day - or twelve times lower than what Health Canada recommends as "safe" for all babies and six times lower than most bottle fed babies get from Toronto tap water used to mix powder formula. Some people are allergic to chocolate and many should avoid the commercial kind with transfats and high fructose corn sugars. Some people are hypersensitive to fluoride and any with poor kidney function should avoid fluoridated water and natural sources of fluoride like tea and baking powder.
As fluoride is harmful to the keystone species in the freshwater food chain at 0.25 mg/L, and a healthy diverse aquatic food chain is one key to the Great Lakes' ability to sequester carbon and recycle calcium, what the hell are we doing adding one pound of calcium-robbing phosphate fertilizer factory scrubber waste fluoride per fluoridated person per year to the downstream Great Lakes ecosystem in treated sewage? And why sneer at those of us concerned about this?
Quote: If fluoridated wastewater is harming bugs, we'd probably want to look into treatment of that wastewater.
No, we (the side I'm rooting for) would stop adding industrial waste fluoride to the drinking water. It would make the most economic, environmental, and ethical sense.
I'm not. I just suggested better wastewater treatment to address that.
Though I might sneer if you dismiss wastewater treatment because it isn't what you're really angling for.
Angling as in fishing? Or geometry?
Sneer if I say straight out (no bait, no tangent) I don't want and don't need to swallow fluoride while drinking the water I do need? And science backs me on this?
Fluoride is difficult and costly to remove from source water, let alone waste water. It requires a lot of calcium and/or activated alumina, energy-intensive to extract from the earth, process and purify for the purpose, and not reusable but needs separate waste disposal. The UN's Fluorosis Prevention and Iodine Deficiency Disease Prevention groups struggle with this all over the developing world - they think we are completely nuts to ADD fluoride to what is fast becoming the world's most precious commodity. High tech membrane filtration that is appropriate for reducing fluoride in source drinking water is not for waste water treatment. That is why, I repeat, stopping the pollution at the front end makes the most economic, environmental and ethical sense.
Fluoride's dental benefit is from daily brushing with Health-Canada approved toothpaste to erupted teeth, that should not be swallowed or used by young children according to label, and not from systemic ingestion and accumulation in body tissues (CDC, 1999, 2000). Fluoridated water should not be used to mix baby formula due to risk to infant's developing bones and teeth (ADA 2006). Ambient fluoride intake from foods and beverages is already ample in North America (CDC NHANES data, USDA data). But no correlation exists between fluoride intake and dental decay prevention (CDC, NRC, CDA, ODA) - only between increased intake and dental fluorosis, and increased intake and premature birth (CDC-NHANES and Am. PH Assoc 2009) and increased intake and anemia in pregnancy (Susheela 2010).
Phosphate fertilizer factory scrubber waste (H2SiF6) has never been approved by Health Canada or any other government agency for human consumption or use as a dental product, drug, natural product, water additive or nutrient supplement (Petition 299) but is otherwise regulated by our own CEPA and all over the world (Basel Convention) as a hazardous pollutant that should not be emitted to air, surface water or land...I guess they are all part of that "fringe" trying to control the public agenda with their junk science since they come out against drinking the stuff especially if you're a baby or pregnant lady... but you don't want fluoridation stopped because... why?
Not intended as flame. Sorry if taken as such. But not as lame as flaming all of us as buyers of government homeopathy scam without explaining what that even means.
It's all good, I don't type fluoride very often. Just to clarify Nutrimom, my poorly constructed responses were a jibe at those who are trying to mock you and others here. They believed there was nothing wrong with tobacco 30 years ago too because that's what the science said.
but you don't want fluoridation stopped because... why?
I'm a communist and I want to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.
Just kidding! I'm actually paid by Monsanto to spread COINTEL!
Quote: I'm a communist
Ah, a fringe political affiliation - good for you. We fringies need to unite so we can overthrow the public agenda. But now I'm confused. I thought the Soviet Union communists abandoned fluoridation because it made the Gulag prisoners too thyroid-suppressed to do the slave labour during those long Siberian winters, and they needed all the silicofluorides they could gather in order to make fluorine to enrich uranium for their nuclear arsenal during the Cold War.
China has communism but is dead set against fluoridation. That One Child policy made them really pay attention to what goes into a healthy pregnancy and smarter baby, and it wasn't more fluoride. They have a terrible time with environmental fluoride poisoning from burning coal, and ground water contamination with fluoride. They do not have improved dental health from this. They have thirty million people affected by skeletal fluorosis and iodine deficiency disease - fluoride is an iodine antagonist.
Quote: I'm actually paid by Monsanto
Monsanto PAYS people like us to post stuff? Where do I sign up? Do you have to fake it according to their rules? Oh, silly me. COINTEL. I thought it was CO- INTEL as in agreeing with the intel.
So, really, off the record, why don't you want fluoridation stopped?
I wish facts could carry the day. But when discussing conspiracies, facts don't count if:
- they're from a source that's "clearly in the pocket of Big _______!"
- they've been contradicted by Jenny McCarthy's gut feelings
- they're not in alignment with a conspiracy theorist's "common sense"
- they've ever been reported by the mainstream media
- they don't support the conspiracy in question
Sorry, I must have missed where you posted your "facts". What were those "facts" again?
Snert is presented with the evidence that he himself was unable to find and that, moreover, clearly states the lack of high quality data to back up the fluoridation argument, yet he calls fluoridation skeptics "conspiracy theorists". I guess it's just a catch-all term to use when you find you have nothing to bring to the argument.
but you don't want fluoridation stopped because... why?
I'm a communist and I want to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.
Just kidding! I'm actually paid by Monsanto to spread COINTEL!
Snert, I believe Nutrimom was asking you a serious question here. You seem to be arguing that we should fluoridate via drinking water, can you explain why?
Fluoridation information resources:
World Health Organization
Office of the Chief Dental Officer of Canada fluoride information
Chief Medical Officer of Health, Ontario
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
City of Toronto Fluoride Fact Sheet
Note: 1 gram per cubic metre = 1 mg per litre = 1 part per million
......
I wish facts could carry the day. But when discussing conspiracies, facts don't count if:
.....
- Actually, it's with the Defenders of the Official Story of Anything where facts become irrelevant when they contradict the Official Story of Anything as spread by the mainstream media and/or government. And said Defenders are, apparently, so insecure in their beliefs that they don't care to even try to argue 'fact', esp when it is quite obvious, as it often is, that their position is pretty weak, but immediately turn to strawdog arguments and juvenile ridicule - essentially the Deference to Authority as noted by jas. I guess it's understandable, if a bit sad - most people, by the time they get out of school, understand that both the government and mainstream media are not the most reliable sources of information - but some people, for whatever reason, appear to align themselves with the Authorities, and feel obliged to defend whatever the Authorities get up to as Defenders of the Faith of some stripe. They seem incapable of the open-minded position - ok, there is conflicting information, the case is open - no, they need to vigorously defend the Authorities, and since 'facts' are no longer on their side, they turn to ridicule and strawdogs and similar rhetorical devices.
Not much point in engaging with such people - their 'minds' are made up, and facts are not relevant. They're Defenders of the Faith, beyond facts, beyond reason, beyond reach.
World Health Organization:
The WHO’s 2001 World Health Assembly Resolution 54.2 “recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, the introduction of nutrient rich [not “fluoride rich”] complementary foods thereafter with continued breastfeeding to two years of age or beyond”. The WHO is thus recommending a low fluoride intake of <0.01 mg/kg/day – not increased fluoride intake and not water fluoridation.
The WHO World Health Assembly has not passed a resolution recommending artificial water fluoridation, or fluoride supplements, or fluoridated salt. The claim that WHO endorses a de facto increased fluoride dosage as a universal public health measure (as it does for vaccines and iodine deficiency prevention) is thus false and misleading as well as potentially damaging to infant health.
The WHO has resolutions on fluorosis prevention (getting fluoride OUT of drinking water) and iodine deficiency disease prevention. Fluoride is an iodine antagonist. WHO researchers in Pakistan recommend children be given water with no more than 0.3 ppm fluoride. India's WHO fluorosis prevention group says "the less fluoride the better, as fluoride is injurious to health."
Infants fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water at “optimal” fluoridation of 0.7 mg/L will receive excessive fluoride (NRC, 2006, p.33 and Table 2-6, p.40) at dosage now established as reducing IQ (23 studies), affecting thyroid, delaying tooth eruption, increasing risk of childhood bone fractures and causing dental fluorosis in permanent teeth that erupt later. NRC 2006 categorizes moderate dental fluorosis as "adverse effect" and severe dental fluorosis and early stage skeletal fluorosis as "adverse health effects" of chronically increased fluoride ingestion.
The WHO assembly resolutions should not be misrepresented to support the agenda of pro-fluoridation factions. Unless, of course, you need to propagandize a population into accepting added toxic waste in drinking water when people would ordinarily and sensibly abhor it for themselves and their children.
Toronto Fluoride Fact Sheet:
The fact that the actual chemical added to Toronto drinking water is not naturally occurring fluoride in soil, air or water but is man-made (fluorosilic acid) and regulated as Class 1 hazardous waste is omitted.
The fact that fluoridation of chloramine-treated water increases lead at the tap 2-8 times higher than chloramine-treated water without fluoridation, and up to 10% of homes tested in Toronto exceeded the regulatory limit for lead, is omitted.
The statement that they are committed to water quality and safety is not substantiated; shipments of fluorosilic acid contain 40-100 mg of arsenic per liter as shown on assay and nearly all of the arsenic detected in Toronto water is ADDED from fluoridation. Section 20 of the Ont. SDWA states "dilution no defense" for the deliberate addition of regulated toxins, which arsenic is.
The statement that Toronto uses current science is false. The 2006 National Research Council report to the EPA is excluded deliberately as its findings show harm to vulnerable minorities and high intake consumers from water with more than 0.5 ppm. Toronto Public Health conducted its own literature review (Azarpazhooh and Stewart, 2006) but didn't like the findings - that interrupting or ending fluoridation has no negative impact, or improves children's dental health within five to ten years. So the report was never publicly released.
The statements regarding evidence of dental decay reduction since 1963 are unsubstantiated. I filed FOIA requests to get the data and was told there are no records. So either they have the science and they flipped the finger at the MFIPPA, or they lie on the Fact Sheet. However, childhood dental decay fell everywhere in the developed world, most dramatically in the European countries that never fluoridated salt OR water. A graph using WHO survey data showing this is in wide circulation and available on Fluoride Action Network.
So if the sheet said "Toronto fluoridates its drinking water with toxic waste that causes increased lead and arsenic in drinking water, and adverse effect to the teeth of 12% of adolescent children without benefit, and we ignore all the science that doesn't support our plan to make everyone increase their fluoride intake five to twenty times more than nature would provide" it would be a fact sheet. But then the public would want to end fluoridation. And that is apparently the wrong thing for the public to want.
Which brings me to the overall consistency of this thread: Jonathan Kay's attack on the informed right to democratic dissent.
Does it just apply to water fluoridation? Does it stop there?
Why is it wrong to say that we don't want to swallow industrial waste fluoride, added arsenic and leached lead in public drinking water? Why is it wrong to say that children and the environment need protection from fluoride pollution? Why is it wrong to identify fluoride accurately in print as a toxin? Why is it wrong for an Ontario medical doctor to diagnose chronic fluoride poisoning and recommend avoidance of fluoride from all sources including water? Why is it wrong for diabetes and kidney specialists to speak publicly about the serious health effects of decreased fluoride excretion in their patients?
Why is it wrong to challenge public health authority even when there is glaring evidence of breaches of integrity, science, ethics and the law?
edited: I think Nutrimom's questions stand on their own.
But inciting the public to hate the same people he hates, and trying to get the rest of the country to agree that control of the public agenda must be closed to democratic dissent, that's gotta be wrong on some level? Or am I in the wrong century.
edited: I think Nutrimom's questions stand on their own.
Too bad she never cites any sources for her "facts" so we can judge for ourselves how credible they are.
Well only seeing as I know the report and no one else has addressed it I will respond.
Yes, Nutrimom's post regarding the findings of the CWQG is not factual.
The CWQG was not using a ~0.5 safety factor as NM states, but a 0.01 safety factor based on a level of 11.5 mg/L of fluoride and caddisflies. They had done several tests in several different water conditions on caddisflies and other animals and the 11.5 was the lowest number among all the tests. Then they reduced that number by a factor of 100 for safety. It was stated very clearly how the number was derived in the very paragraph where they stated the 0.12 mg/L preliminary number. In the case of Daphnia there was some reduced reproductivity at around 35 mg/L for a period of 2 or 3 weeks. Plants were generally found to be less sensitive than these animals.
The report also said the Ocean naturally has a fluoride level of 1.3 mg/L I believe and the natural range in Canadian groundwater was around 0.01 to 1.2 mg/L and potenially as high as 15 mg/L. There are many locations in the world where fresh water is naturally above 3.0 mg/L.
The claims that Soviet Union stopped using fluoride because it made gulag prisoners unable to work were a laughable conspiracy when the anti-communist extreme right made them up back in the McCarthy era - but the original claim was that they used them in POW camps to keep the prisiners calm and less likely to cause trouble or escape. Those conspiracy theories are pure fiction and were so laughable that it featured in Dr. Strangelove. The Soviet Union continued fluoridating water right up until the USSR dissolved.
However, I have no interest in looking into any more of these CT claims or participating in this pointless debate. If the anti-fluoride loons try spread their nonsense into my community I will battle their bullsh*t. Until then I don't really care that all kinds of far-right anti-public health conspiracy theories continue to infiltrate the left.
These battles will continue. They will win some (like they did in waterloo) and they will lose some. It won't affect people like me or almost anyone on this board. I am well enough off that I have access to regular dental care and the rest. But that is not the purpose of water fluoridation and other public health measures. The purpose was to help protect those who were most vulnerable due to social determinants of health. I have worked in many poor and isolated communities and I have seen the affects of rotting teeth. But why should progressives place the dental health of those less fortunate over the protection of themselves from imaginary demons?
Well only seeing as I know the report and no one else has addressed it I will respond.
Welcome back, Trevormkidd. Haven't seen you since some rather creative and amusing WTC math last spring.
However, I have no interest in looking into any more of these CT claims or participating in this pointless debate.
I'm sure you don't, because you haven't bothered to provide any sources of your own here, and I'm guessing you won't want to.
"Far right"? Um, you do know National Post is on your side? And who are you calling conspiracy theorists?
It will affect people on this board, because this debate is showing anyone who cares to read that the "evidence" for the benefits of water fluoridation has been largely fabricated. Unless you have some new information that you wish to share?
And source for the bolded, please.
I for one would be happy to place my concern for the dental health of "the less fortunate" in the appropriate hierarchy as soon as the fluoridationists produce the data that shows us once and for all that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay in the overwhelming majority of cases. Perhaps you could help in this regard?
Make your argument rock solid. Produce some evidence.
Thanks.
Make your argument rock solid. Produce some evidence.
Thanks.
Experts confirm the benefits of fluoride for dental health
A global consultation on fluoride and oral health was held in Geneva on 17-19 November 2006. The consultation was jointly organized by the
World Dental Federation, 
International Association for Dental Research (IADR), and the 
World Health Organization (WHO) to discuss development of effective legislation, necessary directives and programs to ensure access to fluoride for dental health in all countries. To review a press release about the results of the consultation in either English or French, consult the 
World Dental Federation Web site.
For more information on Health Canada's Fluoride policies, visit the "It's Your Health" article on Fluoride and Human Health
Also: the World Health Organization's "Call to Action to Promote Dental Health By Using Fluoride"
But since fluoride is in tooth paste already, why does it have to be added to drinking water? Why not give people a choice?
What does Canada's national dental officer say? Or do we even have one?
I see Sineed hasn't bothered to read the thread. Where do you think I found the McDonagh et al. report?
And here's a translation of a nice comprehensive report by the Institut National de Sante Publique du Quebec. The authors are dentists and environmental scientists. You can find the whole thing is here:
http://www.inspq.qc.ca/pdf/publications/705-WaterFluoration.pdf
sixty years to reduce the incidence tooth decay in the general population. This preventive
measure is recognized by the scientific community as being safe, economical and effective.
Moreover, it reaches all segments of the population, particularly the poor, for whom other
preventive measures may be inaccessible....Since then, numerous studies and systematic reviews of the scientific
literature have amply demonstrated the beneficial effects of water fluoridation (4, 8, 11-14).
These effects can be obtained, while also minimizing the risk of mild and very mild fluorosis
in young children, by maintaining fluoride concentrations between 0.7 and 1.2 mg/L
Here are the references cited that show the benefits of fluoridation:
4. MMWR report, Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental
Caries in the United States, 17 aout, 2001, vol.50, Available at :
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
5. Singh, KA., Spencer, AJ., Armfield, JM. Relative effects of pre- and posteruption water
fluoride on caries experience of permanent first molars. J Public Health Dent. 2003
Winter; 63(1): 11-9.
6. Singh, KA., Spencer, AJ. Relative effects of pre- and post-eruption water fluoride on
caries experience by surface type of permanent first molars. Community Dent Oral
Epidemiol. 2004 Dec; 32(6): 435-46.
7. Singh, KA., Spencer, AJ., Brennan, DS. Effects of water fluoride exposure at crown
completion and maturation on caries of permanent first molars. Caries Res. 2007; 41(1):
34-42.
8. Fluoridation Facts. American Dental Association. 2005, Available at :
http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf
and11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Review of fluoride benefits and risks
report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate
Environmental Health and Related Programs. Washington : U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1991.
Available at : http://health.gov/environment/ReviewofFluoride
MAJOR FINDINGS1
ASSESSMENT OF THE HEALTH BENEFITS OF FLUORIDE
Fluoride has substantial benefits in the prevention of tooth decay. Numerous studies, taken together, clearly establish a causal relationship between water fluoridation2 and the prevention of dental caries. While dental decay is reduced by fluoridated toothpaste and mouth rinses, professional fluoride treatments and fluoride dietary supplements, fluoridation of water is the most cost-effective method. It provides the greatest benefit to those who can least afford preventive and restorative dentistry and reduces dental disease, loss of teeth, time away from work or school, and anesthesia-related risks associated with dental treatment.
In the 1940's, children in communities with fluoridated drinking water had reductions in caries scores of about 60 percent as compared to those living in non-fluoridated communities. Recent studies still reveal that caries scores are lower in naturally or adjusted fluoridated areas; however, the differences in caries scores between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas are not as great as those observed in the 1940's. This apparent change is likely explained by the presence, in non-fluoridated areas, of fluoride in beverages, food, dental products, and dietary supplements.
Fluoride has been used for nearly 30 years as an experimental therapy to treat osteoporosis, but has only recently been evaluated in controlled clinical trials. Two new U.S. clinical trials showed no significant reduction in the rates of bone fractures related to the administration of fluoride. An FDA advisory panel has concluded that fluoride therapy has not been shown to be effective in reducing the frequency of vertebral fractures.
Here are the references cited that show the benefits of fluoridation:
4. MMWR report, Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States, 17 aout, 2001, vol.50, Available at : http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
5. Singh, KA., Spencer, AJ., Armfield, JM. Relative effects of pre- and posteruption water fluoride on caries experience of permanent first molars. J Public Health Dent. 2003 Winter; 63(1): 11-9.
6. Singh, KA., Spencer, AJ. Relative effects of pre- and post-eruption water fluoride on caries experience by surface type of permanent first molars. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004 Dec; 32(6): 435-46.
7. Singh, KA., Spencer, AJ., Brennan, DS. Effects of water fluoride exposure at crown completion and maturation on caries of permanent first molars. Caries Res. 2007; 41(1): 34-42.
Thanks. Are you going to quote the relevant text? And we already dealt with No. 8. so I took that off your list.
An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation
Water fluoridation, poverty, and tooth decay in 12 year old children
http://www.jodjournal.com/article/S0300-5712(00)00005-1/abstract
Aim: To examine the influence of water fluoridation, and socio-economic deprivation on tooth decay in the permanent dentition of 12 year old children.
Setting: The North of England, fluoridated Newcastle and non-fluoridated Liverpool. A total of 6,638 children were examined.
Outcome Measures: Multiple Regression analysis of fluoride status, mean electoral ward DMFT in 1992/93 and ward Townsend Scores from the 1991 census.
Results: Social deprivation and tooth decay were significantly correlated in areas with and without water fluoridation. Multiple linear regression showed a statistically significant interaction between ward Townsend score, mean DMFT and water fluoridation, showing that the more deprived the area the greater the reduction in tooth decay.
At a Townsend score of zero (the English average) there was a predicted 37% reduction in decay in 12-year-olds in fluoridated wards.
Conclusions: Tooth decay is strongly associated with social deprivation. The findings confirm that the implementation of water fluoridation has markedly reduced tooth decay in 12-year-old children and that socio-economic dental health inequalities are reduced.
I have been around from time to time. True I don't spend any of my time on the threads where people have proven themselves to completely ignorant of basic highschool physics and math make complete fools of themselves promoting their delusional conspiracy views. No since wasting my time on people who are putting that much effort into fooling themselves.
Pretty much the answer I was expecting from you. Funny how you don't give a shit about sources from anyone posting the crap you agree with. I am sure that you have spent enough time on the internet to learn about the search engine google. But since you can't be bothered to exercise that basic internet skill - here you go: ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/180
Bottom of page 2, top of page 3. Yes, I understand the pointlessness of this as the goalposts are just going to move, and move again, and move again.
Who cares? If you did any background research into conspiracy theories it is beyond easy to see that all of these ridiculous conspiracies stem from the very anti-government, often fundamentalist, very far-right wing. Whether it be anti-fluoride from those nuts in the McCarthy era, or the birthers or truthers of today (the godfather of the truthers is the anti-government far-right Alex Jones) the source is always the same group of paranoid anti-government nuts. You could start by reading A Culture of Conspiracy or Hofstadter's Paranoid Style of American Poltiics where he talks about pseudo-conservatives. Conspiracy theories at least make sense for these groups. They are not interested in anything but the complete destruction of social institutions. In the case of those on the left - they are really just dolts helping them out.
As I said in the previous post I have no interest in engaging this bunch of nuttery. If you come into my community then I will spend my time attempting to educate those who can be educated. I have a busy enough life and I have a lot better things to do than attempt to reason with those who cannot be reasoned with.
Anyone who has spent any time of other threads knows that the above statement is the farthest anything could be from the truth.
They must all have bad teeth in Sweden. Apparently they banned fluoridation of drinking water in the 1970s.
The effect of water fluoridation and social inequalities on dental caries in 5-year-old children:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2/300.abstract
As I said in the previous post I have no interest in engaging this bunch of nuttery. If you come into my community then I will spend my time attempting to educate those who can be educated. I have a busy enough life and I have a lot better things to do than attempt to reason with those who cannot be reasoned with.
Trevor seems a little cranky.
I'm not asking to be "reasoned with". I'm sure you "reason with" lots of people in your life. I'm asking you to simply provide some evidence that fluoridation reduces dental caries in the overwhelming majority of cases. If you can't produce this evidence, then maybe you shouldn't be commenting on others here.
In Sweden they have an extensive program of fluoride mouth-rinse in the schools. Fluoride varnishing at the dentist office. And even still they are instituting fluoridated salt to deal with the problem of caries. Tell me what exactly the conspiracy theorists who have had fluoride removed from the water in waterloo have put in its place? Nothing? Because like I said - the people who promote these ideas are only interested in tearing down social institutions and they use fear and misinformation to do it.
That said, I will concede that the evidence suggests that fluoridation wouldn't be necessary if good dental care was available to all:
People like Sineed have produced evidence. You either won't read it, won't accept it, or move the goal posts.
I for one would be happy to place my concern for the dental health of "the less fortunate" in the appropriate hierarchy as soon as the fluoridationists produce the data.
See my above posts.
The reduction in the relative effect of fluoridation, which is also seen in the systematic review by McDonagh et al has generally not been big enough to call into question the justification for fluoridating water.
That's interesting. I didn't think that McDonagh et al. discussed the reduction in relative effect of fluoridation at all. I will take another look. Notice the authors also offer their opinion at the end, based on this apparent discussion.
Sineed, please quote some relevant text, in all your citations, related specifically to water fluoridation and reduction of caries. Thanks.
In Sweden they have an extensive program of fluoride mouth-rinse in the schools. Fluoride varnishing at the dentist office. And even still they are instituting fluoridated salt to deal with the problem of caries.
Source?
"Social institutions" that the cities of Montreal and Vancouver also participate in? What exactly are you talking about?
A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation
Evidence-Based Dentistry (2007) 9, 39–48. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400578
Fluoridation of drinking water remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the caries prevention effects of fluoride. It is recommended (see also www.nhmrc.gov.au/news/media/rel07/_files/fluoride_flyer.pdf ) that water be fluoridated in the target range of 0.6–1.1 mg/l, depending on the climate, to balance reduction of dental caries and occurrence of dental fluorosis.
Sineed, in her flurry of citations, hasn't quoted a single study correlating water fluoridation with reduction of caries.
I think Canadians need a dental plan and universal drug coverage. This private insurance thing for dental works about as well as it did for the sick and dying in Canada before Tommy Douglas' time. In Sweden there is the National Board of Social Insurance providing coverage for Swedes over the age of 20. The UK has universal dental, too.
Sineed, please quote some relevant text, in all your citations, related specifically to water fluoridation and reduction of caries. Thanks.
Fair enough. From the last article I cited:
Existing evidence strongly suggests water fluoridation is beneficial at reducing
dental caries. After adjustment for potential confounding variables, it was
shown2 that introducing water fluoridation into an area significantly increased
proportion of caries-free children, and decreased mean dmft/DMFT scores vs
areas that were non-fluoridated over the same time period. These findings2 also
suggest cessation of fluoridation resulted in the difference in caries prevalence
narrowing between fluoridated and nonfluoridated populations. Only one
additional relevant original study was identified in the current review, which did not change the conclusion.
If you mean this one: www.nhmrc.gov.au/news/media/rel07/_files/fluoride_flyer.pdf the link doesn't work. And, anyway, guess which report they are referring to?
From what I have read tonight, seems that the decision taken by the citizens of Waterloo only makes sense if they intend to provide universal dental care once fluoridation ceases. Otherwise, as data from the US and the UK have found, there'll be more rotten teeth among poor kids.
'Night, everybody. Nice to see you again, Trevor!
Well, I suppose the thread is about to be closed - but some words on debate from Robert Fulfor (whom I don't usually agree with, but this is sensible)
"...
Canadians know how to argue, but we’re not much good at organized disputation. For one thing, we find it hard to take seriously the different views of others, which is essential in a debate. A free-market advocate must be ready to consider, at least, the pre-formed ideas of socialists, and vice versa. A certain generosity of spirit, and if possible a little curiosity, are helpful.
To make debate work, mutual respect is essential. You must try to imagine that those you disagree with are probably no less patriotic than you are. You may notice that their arguments tend to be pretty selfish; it would help if you understood your own selfishness. Those on all sides must avoid the assumption that they have taken permanent ownership of the moral high ground.
When those who disagree with us make stern criticisms of our views, we should be grateful. For an individual, this could be the most profitable moment in a debate. John Stuart Mill says in On Liberty that even if we are totally confident of what we believe, our opinions should be “fully, frequently and fearlessly discussed.” Otherwise, they will turn into dead dogma rather than truth.
And here’s the hardest part: In an intelligent debate, there should be at least an outside chance that a mind might conceivably be changed. Is that too much to ask? Usually..."
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/27/robert-fulford-canadians-dont-want-debates-they-want-to-hear-what-they-think/#ixzz16YDGVoXU
It gets more than a bit tiresome to constantly be referred to as a nutcase of one stripe or another for daring to disagree with Received Wisdom as dispensed by various Authorities, by self-appointed Defenders of the Faith of one type or another who specialize in ridicule and rhetoric rather than reasoned and open discussion of open questions. But I guess there will always be impediments to new ideas, from the flat-earthers demanding Copernicus cease his crazy ideas because Authority Has Decreed the Earth is the Center of the Universe!! on down to those today who defend the preposterous Official Conspiracy Theory of how the WTC buildings collapsed.
The last article Sineed cited, A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation is found here and says this:
Research question: Is intentional water fluoridation more efficacious than no water fluoridation in the prevention of dental caries?
The existing body of evidence strongly suggests that water fluoridation is beneficial at reducing dental caries. After adjustment for potential confounding variables, McDonagh et al (2000a) showed in their systematic review that the introduction of water fluoridation into an area significantly increased the proportion of caries-free children, and decreased mean dmft/DMFT scores compared with areas which were non-fluoridated over the same time period. The findings of McDonagh et al (2000a) also suggest that cessation of fluoridation resulting in a narrowing of the difference in caries prevalence between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations. Only one additional relevant original study was identified in the current review and this did not change the conclusion of the existing systematic review.
Here's what McDonagh et al. actually said:
Analysis
We included 214 studies; none was of evidence level A (high quality, bias unlikely). The study designs used included 45 controlled before-after studies, 102 cross sectional studies, 47 ecological studies, 13 cohort (prospective or retrospective) studies, and seven case-control studies.
There was significant heterogeneity among the included studies...
Comments
The most serious defect of the studies of possible beneficial effects of water fluoridation was the lack of appropriate design and analysis. Many studies did not present an analysis at all, while others did not attempt to control for potentially confounding factors. Age, sex, social class, ethnicity, country, tooth type (primary or permanent), mean daily regional temperature, use of fluoride, total fluoride consumption, method of measurement (clinical exam or radiographs, or both), and training of examiners are all possible confounding factors in the assessment of development of dental caries.
While some of these studies were conducted in the 1940s and 50s, before the common use of such analyses, later studies also failed to use methods that were then commonplace. Many studies lacked any measure of variance for the estimates of caries presented....
Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken. As such, this review should provide both researchers and commissioners of research with an overview of the methodological limitations of previous research.
What this study adds
A systematic review of water fluoridation reveals that the quality of the evidence is low...
Overall, reductions in the incidence of caries were found, but they were smaller than previously reported.
The prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) is highly associated with the concentration of fluoride in drinking water.
There are only 8 countries that still fluoridate over 50% of their water, most countries rejected it long ago because it has been shown that communities that fluoridate their water have seen their cavity rates fall just as fast as those communities that don't. Quebec (which doesn't fluoridate) has just as good teeth as Ontario (which does fluoridate). Vancouver doesn't fluoridtate, but their teeth are as good or better than Toronto that does. The reason for this is likely that the only value from fluoride is topical application...and most of us get that from toothpaste.
Fluoride, particularly the industrial waste stuff, should never be ingested...it has been liked to dental fluorisis (suffered now by as many as 30% of children), skeletal fluorosis (feels like arthritis), thyroid and kidney problems. Even the American dental Association agrees that infants should never be given formula made up with fluoridated water. The Canadian Green Party also just announced they supported the end of Water Fluoridation.
Toothpaste costs 59 cents a tube and provides 100X more fluoride protection than gargling with drinking water. I wish they would stop doing things to us for our own good.
From what I have read tonight, seems that the decision taken by the citizens of Waterloo only makes sense if they intend to provide universal dental care once fluoridation ceases. Otherwise, as data from the US and the UK have found, there'll be more rotten teeth among poor kids.
And, once again, citing mysterious "data" that she can't seem to produce. But really, all we need to do is compare major Canadian cities. Is the incidence of tooth decay higher in non-fluoridated Vancouver and Montreal than in other Canadian cities?
Toothpaste costs 59 cents a tube and provides 100X more fluoride protection than gargling with drinking water. I wish they would stop doing things to us for our own good.
Aw, shucks! Should have let cruisin_turtle have the last word! And siamdave.
Fascinating. Someone made a claim that you didn't require cited evidence to accept. I wonder why?
Closing for length.
And if there's a new thread, can we keep the conversation more respectful please?
It would be nice if the tinfoil-hat column would tell us the reason behind putting this noxious chemical into the drinking water.
Does a fluoridated body make it easier for aliens to slip in the anal probe? Does fluoride make our brains more susceptible to the Illuminati's sinister message? Does fuoride neutralise airport x-rays or cause airliners to fly into tall buildings?