Fluoride

Traumadoc

What is the problem with Flouride? It seems only recently to have becme an issue despite being used for 40 years without major issues ( as far as I know) I worked in another country without fluridation and dental health was shocking. I have never seen so many dental abcesses, general tooth decay- etc. I learnt to be pretty good with dental blocks.

Saruman

Well i believe its a poison! There is enough in a tube of toothpaste to kill a rat i heard.

Zillah

So, its probably not a good idea to eat an entire tube of toothpaste in a single sitting then... :rolleyes:

nesf

Traumadoc wrote:

What is the problem with Flouride? It seems only recently to have becme an issue despite being used for 40 years without major issues ( as far as I know) I worked in another country without fluridation and dental health was shocking. I have never seen so many dental abcesses, general tooth decay- etc. I learnt to be pretty good with dental blocks.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

N8

Just took a quick look on google and found these...

International research has shown a link between the mass medication of fluoridation and bone cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis, hip fractures, memory loss, irritable bowel syndrome, genetic damage and immune system damage.

98% of Europe’s drinking water is fluoride-free (including N. Ireland).

The fluoride added to Irish drinking water is toxic waste from the fertilizer industry, It is so corrosive that the pipes used to put it into drinking water themselves are replaced on a twice or three times a year basis.

During World War 2, both the Germans and the Russians added sodium fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners of war to make them stupid and docile (remember many major tranquilisers are fluoridated compounds).

More stuff:

http://www.irishhealth.com/discussion/message.html?dis=2&topic=2394

http://www.voice.buz.org/mailarchive/msg00076.html

Zillah

Neither of those links support your sensationalist claims...

simu

Not recommended for US babies, it would seem: http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/fluoride_infants.asp?id=egram_061109

nesf

simu wrote:

Not recommended for US babies, it would seem: http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/fluoride_infants.asp?id=egram_061109

Yes but the last part of this article was about maintaining community water fluoridation. Plus, fluorosis isn't dangerous or anything. Little white marks that usually aren't perceivable by people are not a high price to pay for healthier teeth in general.


Most of the dangerous stuff about fluoride that you see posted around the place only applied to very large doses of fluoride in water. What's in our water supply is tiny in comparison. It's a bit like saying that air is unsafe to breathe because carbon dioxide is a silent killer. Do you know what I mean?

simu

nesf wrote:

Yes but the last part of this article was about maintaining community water fluoridation. Plus, fluorosis isn't dangerous or anything. Little white marks that usually aren't perceivable by people are not a high price to pay for healthier teeth in general.


Most of the dangerous stuff about fluoride that you see posted around the place only applied to very large doses of fluoride in water. What's in our water supply is tiny in comparison. It's a bit like saying that air is unsafe to breathe because carbon dioxide is a silent killer. Do you know what I mean?

Aye but give people the choice of whether they want their kids to have speckled teeth - why should it be imposed on all by the govt?

nesf

simu wrote:

Aye but give people the choice of whether they want their kids to have speckled teeth - why should it be imposed on all by the govt?

That's a whole different can of worms, that is a bit outside of the scope of this thread tbh.

N8

fluorosis - speckled teeth, speckled bones....

N8

Zillah wrote:

Neither of those links support your sensationalist claims...

Claims? Sensationalist? Hardly. I don’t mean to be rude but I did say “more stuff” not “here it is.” However,

The first is common knowledge. International research has shown a link between the mass medication of fluoridation and bone cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis, hip fractures, memory loss, irritable bowel syndrome, genetic damage and immune system damage. A quick look found this: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health

The second is fact. Can you tell me what other European countries mass medicate their population with fluoride? Do they have a differing epidemiology of the above mentioned health problems?

The third is constituent from discussions with a patient of mine who works with the stuff. The fluoride added to our water supply is hydrofluorosilic acid – highly corrosive. It burns through the pipes. The constituents of this acid would alone alert anyone with a bit of knowledge in chemistry as to how corrosive this stuff would be.

The fourth I read before and if you have access to a MIMS you will easily see the constituents of many tranquilisers. This issue is the subject of much discussion in relation not only to the POWs of WW2 but in regard to prisoners since and the use of bromide - its periodical group brother. It is not so much sensational but perhaps being credible, is shocking (not as much as other experimentation and the extermination I realise). However I would agree to link this with the mass medication of fluoridation would be speculative at best.


To be honest this would not be my subject but one I have read about on a spurious basis in the past. I have considered the arguments for fluoridation but in truth I was always won over toward the ending of such mass medication given its detrimental effects on health for Ireland and the fact our health system is struggling already without bringing this on ourselves.

nesf

N8 wrote:

The first is common knowledge. International research has shown a link between the mass medication of fluoridation and bone cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis, hip fractures, memory loss, irritable bowel syndrome, genetic damage and immune system damage. A quick look found this: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health

That site is a tad on the biased side. I don't think that it gives a balanced view of this (considering that the topic is hotly debated in fairness). No one, or at least no one rational disputes what happens at 10ppm or higher, but controlled, (read: convincing) studies at <1ppm are in lesser supply. No one disputes that fluoride is poisonous or lethal in high doses, but this isn't unique in necessary chemicals for the body tbh. And it has to be remembered that ppm is not the sole measure that needs to be used. How much fluoride that is actually ingested is also of interest, if it is possible to measure.

N8 wrote:

To be honest this would not be my subject but one I have read about on a spurious basis in the past. I have considered the arguments for fluoridation but in truth I was always won over toward the ending of such mass medication given its detrimental effects on health for Ireland and the fact our health system is struggling already without bringing this on ourselves.

Purely out of curiosity, what is your subject?

N8

nesf wrote:

Purely out of curiosity, what is your subject?

health care Nesf, with a strong leaning toward preventative, what I meant by not my subject I meant dental was not my thing...

the FAN website I agree was biased but that’s how any argument is; i.e., you hear one side then the other, they counter each others point and we make a decision those on the fence end up with sore arses....

The choice is this: teach children better oral health or mass medicate the nation with what is having disastrous long term and irreversible effects on our health, those proven and real and those speculative and for which we will have to continue and see what happens. For me the choice is simple. I teach my kids how to brush their teeth.

wheresthebeef

this is a medical ethics question. mass medication is one of those things that will always be hotly debated as people assert their right to make choices about thier own healthcare. The issue of folic acid in bread is another similar one (i don't know if there are any risks associated with folic acid vs obvious benefits to reducing nueral tube defects).
personally, i think fluoridation had done a lot to improve the dental health of the population. i dont think there are enough studies into the proven negative effects of fluoridation on the irish population. i would like to see some firmly linked cases of the above mentioned problems being documented solely as a result of fluoridation. something like that is always going to be hard to prove as unfortunately most diseases are caused by a combination of causes, risk factors, traits, and influenced by so many variables. most of the medications and substances we take into our bodies are toxic in high enough quantities.
i'm happy enough at the moment to drink fluoridated water (on a personal level), however if i developed some kind of unexplainable pathology that was rumoured to be linked to fluoridation maybe i would be a little more questioning.
it probably should be left to choice. I would agree that individuals have the right to assert their own choices as regards healthcare and i personally do not like the theory of mass medication. If i want to take folic acid, i'll pop a few Clonfolic pills. I certainly don't want medication given to me in my bread etc...

nesf

N8 wrote:

health care Nesf, with a strong leaning toward preventative, what I meant by not my subject I meant dental was not my thing...

Thanks for indulging my curiosity. Your mention of patients peaked my interest.

N8 wrote:

the FAN website I agree was biased but that’s how any argument is; i.e., you hear one side then the other, they counter each others point and we make a decision those on the fence end up with sore arses....

I agree, but my biggest issue comes from the fact that a lot of the people campaigning (on both sides) can't actually read studies and/or judge how much weight they should be given based on their statistical soundness (how much they control for certain variables, or whether at best there is a loose correlation there etc). We hear loads about how lethal fluoride is, and it is, but whether is it detrimental to humans at the concentration levels in our water is a whole other question and a much more complicated one.

N8 wrote:

The choice is this: teach children better oral health or mass medicate the nation with what is having disastrous long term and irreversible effects on our health, those proven and real and those speculative and for which we will have to continue and see what happens. For me the choice is simple. I teach my kids how to brush their teeth.

This is true, to an extent, and a lot of the debate will be between individual choice people and the 'there are community benefits people'. That's a very complicated and generally contentious debate (myself and simu argue it a lot). Personally, I'm a fence sitter, on one hand I know that trusting everyone to do something is generally a bad idea (it's hard to educate everyone about the benefits of X or Y, look at CHD etc) but equally I recognise that I as an individual should have the final say on what medication I receive. There are excellent arguments for both sides. In this, I'd lean towards maintaining fluoridation until we have more information on it's effects at this concentration. While topical application of fluoride seems to be the equivalent, it is not as easy to achieve.

Traumadoc

From my experience oxygen is a much more dangerous element.

nesf

Traumadoc wrote:

From my experience oxygen is a much more dangerous element.

Well, it does play a key role in almost all lethal explosions doesn't it.

N8

nesf wrote:

Thanks for indulging my curiosity. Your mention of patients peaked my interest.



I agree, but my biggest issue comes from the fact that a lot of the people campaigning (on both sides) can't actually read studies and/or judge how much weight they should be given based on their statistical soundness (how much they control for certain variables, or whether at best there is a loose correlation there etc). We hear loads about how lethal fluoride is, and it is, but whether is it detrimental to humans at the concentration levels in our water is a whole other question and a much more complicated one.



This is true, to an extent, and a lot of the debate will be between individual choice people and the 'there are community benefits people'. That's a very complicated and generally contentious debate (myself and simu argue it a lot). Personally, I'm a fence sitter, on one hand I know that trusting everyone to do something is generally a bad idea (it's hard to educate everyone about the benefits of X or Y, look at CHD etc) but equally I recognise that I as an individual should have the final say on what medication I receive. There are excellent arguments for both sides. In this, I'd lean towards maintaining fluoridation until we have more information on it's effects at this concentration. While topical application of fluoride seems to be the equivalent, it is not as easy to achieve.

and I will agree to disagree good luck to you Nesf!

wheresthebeef

Traumadoc wrote:

From my experience oxygen is a much more dangerous element.

The looming threat of Dihydrogen Monoxide is ever growing. It is certifiably the cause of thousands of deaths worldwide, every year. Personally, i would be more afraid of this stuff, although there are links between Fluoride and Dihydrogen Monoxide.

DrIndy

wheresthebeef wrote:

The looming threat of Dihydrogen Monoxide is ever growing. It is certifiably the cause of thousands of deaths worldwide, every year. Personally, i would be more afraid of this stuff, although there are links between Fluoride and Dihydrogen Monoxide.

Inhalation of dihydrogen monoxide is particularily dangerous and it is a very indolent toxin, produced by many heavy industries and released directly into the environment!

Samples of most food products have been found to contain this substance recently and it is estimated that the entire worlds population has been exposed to it at some stage of their life.

Wibbs

I'd be more worried about chlorination tbh. I read a book(I mentioned it here before AFAIR) by a doctor chappy who when working as a M.A.S.H type in the Korean war noticed what appeared to be premature fatty streaking of the arteries in otherwise healthy young men.

They had all been drinking chlorinated water as part of the US army's disease prevention regime. Now although the chlorination in this case was higher than the civilian levels it wasn't much higher and he wondered if there was a link between this and some forms of heart disease. He found a correlation between levels of heart disease and chlorination of the water supply. In places where the water wasn't chlorinated the levels were far lower.

Very interesting stuff. He went on to experiment with chickens of all things and found that in different groups the chickens did indeed come down with heart disease that looked very similar to the disease process that's normally associated with bad diet and lack of exercise. The more chlorine in the water the more heart disease. Apparently even some in the poultry industry use dechlorinated water because of this link. Now this could be all a bit "Dr Strangelove" and "pure bodily fluids" but I found it thought provoking. It seemed sensible. Then again many a ship of thought has foundered on the rock of "it seems sensible".

You would wonder though how adding a poisonous chemical like chlorine would be beneficial. Unlike flouride you can taste and smell the stuff quite easily. Some places are worse than others though. I remember a mates gaff in Bray that the tap water was like drinking a bloody swimming pool. That can't be good. Hell I'm a smoker, if I can smell and taste it, it must be in a fairly high concentration.:D

Apologies for forgetting the book title and author, but googling the subject brings up too many weirdo sites I'm afraid.

ronbyrne2005

Wibbs wrote:

I'd be more worried about chlorination tbh. I read a book(I mentioned it here before AFAIR) by a doctor chappy who when working as a M.A.S.H type in the Korean war noticed what appeared to be premature fatty streaking of the arteries in otherwise healthy young men.

They had all been drinking chlorinated water as part of the US army's disease prevention regime. Now although the chlorination in this case was higher than the civilian levels it wasn't much higher and he wondered if there was a link between this and some forms of heart disease. He found a correlation between levels of heart disease and chlorination of the water supply. In places where the water wasn't chlorinated the levels were far lower.

Very interesting stuff. He went on to experiment with chickens of all things and found that in different groups the chickens did indeed come down with heart disease that looked very similar to the disease process that's normally associated with bad diet and lack of exercise. The more chlorine in the water the more heart disease. Apparently even some in the poultry industry use dechlorinated water because of this link. Now this could be all a bit "Dr Strangelove" and "pure bodily fluids" but I found it thought provoking. It seemed sensible. Then again many a ship of thought has foundered on the rock of "it seems sensible".

You would wonder though how adding a poisonous chemical like chlorine would be beneficial. Unlike flouride you can taste and smell the stuff quite easily. Some places are worse than others though. I remember a mates gaff in Bray that the tap water was like drinking a bloody swimming pool. That can't be good. Hell I'm a smoker, if I can smell and taste it, it must be in a fairly high concentration.:D

Apologies for forgetting the book title and author, but googling the subject brings up too many weirdo sites I'm afraid.

Chlorine in water is harmless afaik. Sure its essential for humans and is in salt.

Wibbs

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Chlorine in water is harmless afaik.

Do you know why it's in water in the first place? It's a powerful disinfectant. Kills bacteria and viruses. It's also a bleach and a strong oxidiser. Hey I'm not ging all hippy on you here, but it does bear some thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine#Safety

Sure its essential for humans and is in salt.

How is chlorine essential for humans? Salt is but it's sodium chloride. It's the compound that's good for you not the element. The sodium and the chloride bit makes the diff you know. Chlorine gas was what was used in WW1 as a weapon. Water is essential for humans too, but I wouldn't be drinkin' hydrogen anytime soon.;)

N8

There has been quite a bit of chat in The Irish Medical News about the same subject. The most recent letter is here;

http://www.imn.ie/articles.asp?Category=Letter&ArticleID=18139

Strange attitudes abound, with statements such as 'fluorosis is unnoticeable' and refusal to acknowledge “dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity” talk about denial....

perhaps an unwillingness to listen and consider the evidence?

weeda

http://www.irjponline.com/admin/php/uploads/vol2/issue4/13.pdf

tons of other other stuff against it. Look at latest report by Declan Waugh...worrying.

RobFowl

Please do not reopen or post in zombie threads. This particular one was last used 6 years ago....