Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fluoride Negatives: The collaborative facts as derived amidst zealots and cynics.

Options
  • 13-02-2009 8:16pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭


    Hi All,

    Consider this a subsidiary thread to the existing “drinking water (sodium Fluoride)” thread. Consider it a systematic sister albeit still structurally subject to the whims of zealots and cynics. In fact, therein lies the very merit of such sways of online civic disputes of reason and alleged rational : the very conclusion.

    The ubiquities of semantic debates one would think would herald a reciprocal myriad of subsequent solutions. This my friends has never been the case in our beloved CT arena. For that very reason I decree a singular moment of solidarity, one beautiful instance of seamless cohesion whereby the sum of conspiracy theorists and skeptics give birth to a thing that may otherwise forever elude this forum: a series of conclusions.

    Cast your person, ego and willingness to indulge in petty onslaughts of each other’s erroneous submissions aside. In the name of collaborative singularity permit proposition and rebuttal to legitimately marry into the fortitudes of constructive action. Truth be told (and even conspiracies aside) I believe there to be something inherently wrong with addition of fluoride to our water systems. I wish to arrive a series of ten solidified facts. While the conspiracy theorists submit their hypothesis the skeptic are welcome to condemn. The banter indeed may be cyclic but only to the extent that we gain the closure of conclusion.

    Do not contribute to this thread lest you crave the closure of conclusion. If but petty rebuttal is your only intent then you need not apply.
    The aforementioned ten facts can be subcategorized into origins of water fluoridation (but not limited to national history), the effectiveness of water fluoridatiod. Simply put: Skeptics are welcome and if in fact relied on for the very purposes of this thread to shoot down conspiracy related submitted facts but only if in return they can submit a corrective fact. Conspiracy theory advocates on the other hand are only welcome to submit substantiated, verifiable and citated facts.

    Remember that the objective of our little teté-a-teté is to arrive at ten substantiated facts relating to the negative implications of water fluoridation.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    Hi Aye Matey. Welcome Back!

    okay, here are some facts from the WHO website.
    http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro/ireland/data/irelandcar.html

    According to their figures on a sample of subjects who have either fluoridated water from birth and unfluoridated water from birth and it records the occurrence of DMFT and S
    D= Decayed M = Missing F = Filling T = Teeth S = Surface

    Fact: While the figures do suggest that fluoridated is apparently more effective vs unfluoridated water against tooth decay.

    The figures of fluoridated water include the use of fluoridated mouthwash and supplements, likewise the unfluoridated figures exlude use of fluoridated mouthwash and supplements.

    Perhaps someone could clear up for me if this includes toothpaste.

    At each stage broken down into year and agegroup the number of sufferers of tooth decay (always hated that description) is less with fluoridated waterd compared to unfluoridated.

    However,the sample is broken down into 3 age groups: 5years, 12years and 15 years and figures are given for each group for roughly the same year once in the 80's, once in the 90's and finally in this decade.

    In each instance of all age groups from a maximum range of 1984 to 2002 (18years only) the DMFT figure for 2002 unfluoridated water drinkers is less than the fluoridated water drinkers of 1984 without exception.

    This suggests to me that there are far more factors in place in the war on tooth decay than fluoride and that any potential toxic risk of fluoride/fluorine far outweighs its neglibel benefits.

    Also from the WHO site this is graph of DMFT of Swedish 12 year olds from 1985-98. Swedens water has never been fluoridated but this graph will show the consecutive decline in DMFT.
    http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro/sweden/data/swedft12y.html
    Which would make me believe that there are other concerns such as dietary, education, and social factors which all have equal or greater impact in fighting tooth decay than fluoride and all with a toxcity level of 0.00.

    This guy was the main reason the water was never fluoridated in Sweden a Dr Carlsson, a Nobel Prize winning scientist.

    He says nations The Nations "that are using it should feel ashamed of themselves. It's against science."
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson-interview.html

    The Irish Dental Health Foundation says "Fluoridation of the public piped water supplies is the safest, most effective and most efficient method of preventing tooth decay."
    http://www.dentalhealth.ie/information/index.tmpl?secid=20020822160750&subid=20020828150540

    So...one of three possibilities.

    1. Science is open to interpretation
    2. There are a lot of incompetent scientists
    3. Someone is lying

    If it is three then it has to be asked for what purpose

    Here is another paper on the affects of fluoride
    http://www.pauapress.com/fluoride/files/1418.pdf


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭Aye Matey!


    any potential toxic risk of fluoride/fluorine far outweighs its neglibel benefits.

    You've hit the nail on its head. I'll follow up on these points shortly. Hopefully the skeptics will prepare a rebuttal of sorts (if any applies).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    Dept of Health and Children Publication
    Figure 18
    http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/coral.pdf?direct=1

    Dean's Index of Fluorosis, percentage of 8, 12 and 15-year-old children and
    adolescents with a score of ‘Normal’, ‘Questionable’, ‘Very Mild’, ‘Mild’, ‘Moderate or ‘Severe’ fluorosis on their permanent dentition according to fluoridation status in RoI and NI

    Figure 18c: 15-year-olds

    Full Fluoridated ROI %

    Severe 1
    Moderate 1
    Mild 5
    Very Mild 10
    Questionable 19
    Normal 69

    Non Fluoridated ROI %

    Severe 0
    Moderate 0
    Mild 3
    Very Mild 4
    Questionable 10
    Normal 81

    While hardly surprising this clearly shows that incidences of fluorosis is greater in all its stages in areas of water fluoridation. Normal levels 81:69.

    This begs the question for me at least is if these children's oral health is being negatively affectied where else in the body may this toxin be damaging.

    Another point it highlights is the disparity in oral health between means tested medical card holder families and those who don't qualify which brings it back for me to socio-economic factors being more crucial to water fluoridation in good oral health. Evidence of this is the huge reduction in dental problems from the 1960's. Both fluoridated and non fluoridated figures dropped in a similar pattern.

    Nothing else to say except I know way more than i ever wanted about my teeth now



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    Flouride comes naturally in food and water, even black tea.

    It's in toothpaste too.

    And Tap water, what is the obsession with the government?

    Also it's in rat poison and is also a by waste product in factories.

    Why put it in tap water, what is the logic in that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,749 ✭✭✭tony 2 tone


    mysterious wrote: »
    Flouride comes naturally in food and water, even black tea.

    It's in toothpaste too.

    And Tap water, what is the obsession with the government?

    Also it's in rat poison and is also a by waste product in factories.

    Why put it in tap water, what is the logic in that?

    But it is also in Teflon, and some medicines too, so whats your point?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    But it is also in Teflon, and some medicines too, so whats your point?

    Why do we have to add this into our drinking water.

    Like we should be addicted to this stuff. We have it in our toothpaste morning and night. Do we really need it in our tap water? When most agree flouridated water has little effect on our teeth, as in some cases it causes decay even.

    I just don't get the logic, in it other than dumbing us down. Hitler used it for that purpose and the CIA were sexually attracted to the Nazis... And it so happens now we have it our water. Why?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    mysterious wrote: »
    When most agree flouridated water has little effect on our teeth, as in some cases it causes decay even.

    Who are these "most" you speak of?

    Most relevantly-qualified scientists?
    Most of the public?
    Most of those who believe its all a conspiracy?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭Aye Matey!


    bonkey wrote: »
    Who are these "most" you speak of?

    I guess it depends on much credibility you're willing to bestow upon the green party:
    1. We note that dental health in Ireland has improved to the same degree in countries where there is no water fluoridation.
    2. The Department of Health's assessment of the overwhelming benefits of water fluoridation is not justified.
    3. While positive aspects of fluoridation have been over-stated, the growing negative impact has not been properly recognised. The officially-reported sevenfold increase in fluorosis since 1984 is completely unacceptable and requires immediate action.
    4. We are disappointed and alarmed that no general health studies, as provided for in S.6 of the 1960 Fluoridation Act have ever been carried out, particularly considering that four in ten 15 year olds are now affected by fluorosis.
    5. We note that the recommendation of FSAI advising against the use of fluoridated water for the bottle feeding of babies was changed subsequently following representations from a minority of members in 2001.
    6. It is clear and, indeed, accepted by both the pro-and anti-fluoridation sides that the action of fluoride is topical and not systemic.
    7. We believe on the basis of the international studies there would be no long-term increase in dental decay if fluoride were not added to Irish drinking water.
    8. There is no evidence to suggest that Irish people are fluoride deficient, in fact, the evidence at hand suggests that we have too much fluoride in our systems.
    9. It is now accepted by all sides that the sources of fluoride in our diet have increased dramatically since the introduction of water fluoridation.
    10. There is sufficient scientific evidence in relation to health effects - albeit contradictory - to justify the application of the precautionary principle. We also note the latest advice from the American Dental Association which advises parents to choose non-fluoridated water for the bottle feeding babies.
    11. We note that the fluoridating agent hydrofluorosilic acid has not been sanctioned by the Irish Medicines Board.
    bonkey wrote: »
    Most of the public?
    Most of those who believe its all a conspiracy?

    These people seem to care and without a tinfoil hat in site:

    fluoridemarch4.jpg

    fluoridemarch3.jpg

    Surely the Belgian health ministry are not sect of delusioned conpiracy theorists:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2161300.stm

    http://homepage.eircom.net/~fluoridefree/belgiumfluorideban.htm

    Was the rest of Europe off the mark too?:

    http://homepage.eircom.net/~fluoridefree/europe_say_no.htm

    Those madcaps at Clare County Council must be indluging in a little aluminium oragami too perhaps?:

    http://homepage.eircom.net/~fluoridefree/campaign_update/councils.htm

    Surely an official document of the Food Saftey Authority of Ireland should be deemed as a reliable resource:

    http://homepage.eircom.net/~fluoridefree/foodsafetydoc.jpg

    Don't cling too tightly to the false adornments of popular scientific consensus. It should be evident that not all those who arrive at the topic of water fluoridation are necessarily those who believe in conspiracy theory. They have simply invested in a belief that there is something instrinsically wrong with water fluoridation without necessarily having a ridiculous belief in monopolistic Jews, lizards or sociopathic globalists.

    Perhaps mysterious' statement could be doctored to "many" rather than "most'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    bonkey wrote: »
    Who are these "most" you speak of?

    Most relevantly-qualified scientists?
    Most of the public?
    Most of those who believe its all a conspiracy?
    1. Any dentist I've spoken too
    2. Many health experts
    3. I've seen many diagrams and pictograms where flouradated water is present and where it is not present in some countries there is little effect.
    4. also I've seen many documents on the internet showing this.
    5. I could get all this info now, and give you the numbers of different dentist's I've spoken too.
    You know it's like if I were to say to you, that burnt toast is bad for you, would you then ask me for proof, or would you use common sense and logic to realise this, or do you still need more evidence?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,749 ✭✭✭tony 2 tone


    mysterious wrote: »
    Why do we have to add this into our drinking water.

    Like we should be addicted to this stuff. We have it in our toothpaste morning and night. Do we really need it in our tap water? When most agree flouridated water has little effect on our teeth, as in some cases it causes decay even.

    I just don't get the logic, in it other than dumbing us down. Hitler used it for that purpose and the CIA were sexually attracted to the Nazis... And it so happens now we have it our water. Why?

    Who say's it's addictive?
    Any thing other than anecdotal evidence to support the claim "most agree flouridated water has little effect on our teeth"? ie Not "Any dentist I've spoken too"
    Any evidence for the mind control/dumbing down effect? From a neutral site please, anti fluoride sites tend to be fairly biased.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    Any evidence for the mind control/dumbing down effect? From a neutral site please, anti fluoride sites tend to be fairly biased.

    Any evidence to suggest that fluoride substantially improves oral health?
    Any evidence to suggest forced medication is ethically correct?

    Any evidence that fluoridation effects all people equally?
    Any reason to suggest that the government has the health of its people as the main priority?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭Aye Matey!


    Any evidence to suggest that fluoride substantially improves oral health?
    Any evidence to suggest forced medication is ethically correct?

    Any evidence that fluoridation effects all people equally?
    Any reason to suggest that the government has the health of its people as the main priority?

    A perfect and exemplar stalemate. The most common flaw amongst some of weaker skeptics of this forum (I'm sincerely not specifically referring to anyone) is that they so frivously and so often ask for 'evidence' when it is they themselves who lack it. Its much easier to knock a thing down than build it up. Thats why the said skeptics are so often unequipped when the analogical tables are turned.

    Hopefully the more formidable skeptics will be able to address sofa king's queries in kind. Remember that the objective of this thread after all is to arrive at a mutual conclusion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,749 ✭✭✭tony 2 tone


    Sofa king: I never made any statement saying Fluoride is any good, I just would like to see some credible information to support statements, not just some half assed scare mongering, the whole "mind control" point being a prime example. (Not calling your posts half assed)

    Aye Matey: I would hardly call it a stalemate, as above I made no comments on the benifits/negative effects of Fluoride, so have nothing to prove.
    If you are to make claim on something, anything, be prepared to back it up.
    It is a common theme amoungst CTs to instead of providing evidence, to attack the sceptic, to say "go and do research", to dodge the questions, as the last posts have shown.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,749 ✭✭✭tony 2 tone


    Aye Matey! wrote: »
    Remember that the objective of this thread after all is to arrive at a mutual conclusion.
    Here's a better idea, let the CT-ers come up with 10 good points to fluoride and the sceptics come up with 10 bad ones!:p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    Here's a better idea, let the CT-ers come up with 10 good points to fluoride and the sceptics come up with 10 bad ones!:p

    Only 1 positive potential impact. Improved oral health. This in itself is dubious as evidenced by the fact that only some EU countries fluoridate their water.

    On the negatives, forced medication and potential health problems: (this is from fluoride contamination) .

    "As a result, harmful health effects on dental and skeletal growth were observed in the 90's. These include dental and skeletal fluorosis. Dental fluorosis is characterized by yellow or white spots on teeth and pitting or mottled enamel, consequently causing the teeth to look unsightly. Skeletal fluorosis leads to changes in bone structure, making them extremely weak and brittle. The most severe form of this is known as ``crippling skeletal fluorosis,'' a condition that can cause immobility, muscle wasting, and neurological problems related to spinal cord compression."

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.H23F1493M

    Is the risk worth it to reduce cavities?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭Aye Matey!


    Here's a better idea, let the CT-ers come up with 10 good points to fluoride and the sceptics come up with 10 bad ones!:p

    :)

    It wouldn't make any argumentative sense for us to prepare each others motions. Surely you meant the reverse, right? ;) (i.e. CT'ers list 10 negative implications and skeptics list ten positive implications)

    Jokes aside and for the purposes of excercise alone let us both compile the said lists. I'll list ten negative implications each with citated reference while in turn you can compile the constituent positives.

    I present nineteen to you as an appetizer:
    Fluoride compounds which are put in water (fluoridation), toothpaste and supplement tablets (including some vitamins) were never tested for safety before approval. Recent independent research by scientists not associated with dental trade organizations has shown the following:
    1. Neurotoxic and Lowers IQ
      In 1995, neurotoxicologist and former Director of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix published research showing that fluoride built up in the brains of animals when exposed to moderate levels. Damage to the brain occured and the behavior patterns of the animals was adversely effected. Offspring of pregnant animals receiving relatively low doses of fluoride showed permanent effects to the brain which were seen as hyperactivity (ADD-like symptoms). Young animals and adult animals given fluoride experienced the opposite effect -- hypoactivity or sluggishness. The toxic effects of fluoride on the central nervous system was subsequently confirmed by previously-classified government research. Two new epidemiological studies which tend to confirm fluoride's neurotoxic effects on the brain have shown that children exposed to higher levels of fluoride had lower IQs.
    2. A study published in Brain Research shows that rats drinking only 1 part per million fluoride (NaF) in water had histologic lesions in their brain similar to Alzheimer's disease and dementia. In addition, evidence was seen pointing to possible damage to the blood brain barrier from extended fluoride exposure. This study was the third in a series of papers published by Varner et al. Brain Research Vol. 784 No. 12 p 284-298 (1998). Results of this recent study and other studies showing significant dangers from low-level fluoride exposure were presented at a recent scientific symposium.
    3. Causes Cancer
      The Department of Health in New Jersey found that bone cancer in male children was between two and seven times greater in areas where water was fluoridated. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) researchers confirmed the bone cancer-causing effects of fluoride at low levels in an animal model. A new study has shown that fluoridation of water is linked to uterine cancer deaths.
    4. Changes Bone Structure and Strength
      Fluoride gradually builds up in the bones and causes adverse changes to the bone structure. Quite a few studies have shown that fluoridation leads to increases in hip fractures. The tensile strength of the hip is destroyed over time by fluoride ingestion.
    5. Causes Birth Defects and Perinatal Deaths
      A toxicologist in the United Kingdom recently found that perinatal deaths in a fluoridated area was 15% higher than in neighboring non-fluoridated areas. The fluoridated area had a higher socio-economic status and would have been expected to have less perinatal deaths. The fluoridated area also had a 30% higher rate of Down's Syndrome. Chile banned fluoridation because of research by the world-reknowned researcher, Dr Albert Schatz, which showed a link to infant deaths due to fluoridation.
    6. Proven Ineffective
      Fluoride compounds in water and in supplements do not provide any significant cavity-protecting effects. All of the recent large-scale studies of water fluoridation have shown that there are no positive effects. That is why countries without fluoridation have shown an equal improvement in dental health as those with fluoridation. (See Research Item #5.) There is scientific evidence that excessive fluoride exposure leads to increased levels of caries. Even pro-fluoridation scientists admit that there is not any properly-conducted research showing that fluoride supplements help prevent cavities. (Note: check vitamins carefully to be sure they do not include fluoride.)
    7. Impairs Immune System
      Independent research has shown that fluoride impairs the functioning of the immune system. In the United States, where toxic fluoride compounds are regularly added to water and given to children since the 1960s and 1970s, we are beginning to see an overwhelming number of people of that generation who are developing chronic immune system disorders.
    8. Causes Acute Adverse Reactions
      Several double-blind studies have shown that fluoridated water can often cause acute adverse reactions (in addition to the chronic poisoning effects discussed below). Some of the effects seen in double-blind studies include: gastrointestinal symptoms, stomatitis, joint pains, polydipsia, headaches, visual disturbances, muscular weakness, and extreme tiredness. An enlightening review of a book by one famous and well-respected researcher from The Netherlands who found adverse reactions in double-blind experiments can be read here.
    9. Causes Initial Stages of Skeletal Fluorosis
      Fluoride can cause severe skeletal fluorosis at high levels. Chronic, long-term exposure to levels of fluoride commonly found in water and food in the U.S. can cause the beginning stages of skeletal fluorosis including: pains in bones and joints, sensations of burning, pricking, and tingling in the limbs, muscle weakness, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal disorders, reduced appetite, backache, osteoarthritis, etc. In fact, decades of ingestion of fluoride from water and other common sources can be expected to cause these symptoms in large numbers of people based on calculations of fluoride intake and excretion. (Keep in mind that fluoride is a cumulative poison since it builds up in the body of years.) Very few healthcare practitioners are capable of diagnosing such a condition because healthcare practitioners are not trained to test for or recognize the effects chronic poisoning from fluoride.
    10. Increases Lead and Arsenic Exposure
      Fluoride compounds put into water are often contaminated with lead, arsenic and radio nuclides since the fluoride compounds are toxic waste byproducts which largely come from pollution scrubbers of fertilizer plants. A study published in 2000 showed that the dumping of toxic silicofluoride compounds into water ("fluoridation") causes an increase in blood lead levels in children.
    11. Fluoride Causes Osteoarthritis
      In a study published in Rhuematology International in 2001, researchers found a link between fluoride exposure and the development of osteoarthritis. The level of exposure that caused osteoarthritis is common in the United States.
    12. Contributes to the Development of Repetitive Stress Injury
      A clinical study in New Zealand showed that fluoride ingestion may be a contributing factor in the development of Repetative Stress Injury (RSI) since such ingestion may encourage the development of apatite crystal formation. Elimination of fluoride plus regular supplementation of magnesium appeared to help RSI patients considerably.
    13. Causes Permanent Disfigurement of the Teeth in Many Children
      A very large and increasing number of children are experiencing dental fluorosis which is a permanent adverse structural change to the teeth.
    14. Inhibits Key Enzymes
      As fluoride builds up in different parts of the body over decades it can disrupt the actions of many key enzymes. This fact has been known for a long time.
    15. Supresses Thyroid Function
      Fluoride was given at low levels during the early to mid 20th century as an effective way of supressing thyroid function and treating hyperthyroidism. Articles and research can be found on the Thyroid web page.
    16. Causes Large Numbers of Acute Poisonings
      Fluoride is an extremely poisonous substances at exceptionally low doses and has caused a large number of acute poisonings. This is why a poison warning is now required on fluoridated toothpastes sold in the U.S.
    17. Independent Experts Oppose Dumping Fluoride Into Water
      Over 1500 professionals at the US EPA, including toxicologists and risk assessment experts voted unanimously to oppose the fluoridation initiative in California because of the health risks involved. See summary or official EPA union statement. Even the Candian Dental Association Consultant and Researcher urged people to avoid drinking fluoridated water.
    18. Unethical
      Fluoridation amounts to forced medication of the water supply. Such practices demonstrate a complete lack of ethics on the part of its promoters. Studies as early the 1930s showed extreme hazards to man and the environment due to fluoride dumping and exposure. Companies and organizations involved used the promotion of "fluoridation" as a way to avoid lawsuits due to dumping toxic wastes and later for economic gain. Please read the short history of fluoridation for more detailed information.
    19. Banned in Many Countries
      Fluoridation is not legal or not used in the overwhelming number of countries including industrialized countries. Please see Fluoride Status of Countries web page.
    If you are to make claim on something, anything, be prepared to back it up.

    To be fair you know it should traverse both ways tony 2 tone. If you're going to challenge a proposition then by default you have rendered yourself as an opposition to the original motion. Conversley you too had better "be prepared to back it up". Such counsel is bound for us all.

    (Apologies to anyone whose following mysterious' fluoride thread i.e. cross thread double post. The objectives of each of the respective threads are fundamentally different; please allow for the occurance of overlapping.)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Glassheart


    You'll never hear from him again...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,749 ✭✭✭tony 2 tone


    Who?


Advertisement