Fluoride in tap water

hju6

Flouridation of the water supply started around the same time as dental hygene education and the availability of cheap toothbrushes and affordable toothpaste.

So it's more likely the education and use of toothpaste and brushes on teeth has had more of an effect on teeth than the willy nilly, unmeasured , ingestion of flouride via the water supply.

alastair

hju6 wrote: »

Flouridation of the water supply started around the same time as dental hygene education and the availability of cheap toothbrushes and affordable toothpaste.

So it's more likely the education and use of toothpaste and brushes on teeth has had more of an effect on teeth than the willy nilly, unmeasured , ingestion of flouride via the water supply.

It's a theory - but one that runs counter to the following:

During 1963 a representative sample of schoolchildren in Belfast was examined for dental decay using criteria similar to those being used in Britain at the time and similar to those adopted in the pre-fluoridation baseline surveys in the Republic of Ireland in 1961-63.

In 1983 a survey of children's dental health in the United Kingdom included an examination of a representative sample of children in Northern Ireland. The results of these surveys can be seen in Table 3.3 below. It can be seen in 1963 that the mean DMFT amongst 8,12 and 15 year olds in Northern Ireland was similar to that in the Republic of Ireland. Water fluoridation was introduced in the Republic of Ireland in 1964. Fluoride toothpaste was introduced in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland at the same time in the early 1970s. In 1983 the mean DMFT amongst 8,12 and 15 year olds in Northern Ireland was 1.5, 4.4 and 8.5 respectively. The corresponding figures in 1984 in the Republic of Ireland for life-time residents of fluoridated communities was 0.6, 2.6 and 4.1.

Recent data indicate that children and teenagers who are life-time residents of fluoridated communities in the Republic of Ireland (e.g. North Western Health Board) continue to experience considerably lower levels of dental decay than their counterparts in Northern Ireland. It is possible that various sociological, dietary and other factors account for part of this difference but it is reasonable to suggest that the major contributing factor is the fluoridation of public water supplies.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

I don't see any conflicting findings in the report not even from him personally ... I think when you research on who is on that forum you could reach the same conclusion

You think so?

Which of these people are you pointing the finger at?

Professor Patrick F Fottrell, MSc, PhD, DSc, MRIA. Forum Chairperson. Former President and Professor of Biochemistry of National University of Ireland, Galway
Dr Wayne Anderson, BSc (Hons), PhD, MIFST, – Chief Specialist in Food Science, Food Safety Authority of Ireland
Professor William Binchy, Regius Professor of Law, Trinity College Dublin
Professor John Clarkson, BDS, MA, PhD, Professor of Dental Public Health and Dean of Dublin Dental School and Hospital
Dr Dominique Crowley, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Department of Health & Children (until 15/09/00, then – Lecturer, Department of Community Medicine and Epidemiology, University College Dublin until June 2001)
Dr Elizabeth Cullen, MB, MSc (Community Health), Diploma in Pollution Control (Open),
Co-Chair, Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association, Thomastown, Kilcullen, Co. Kildare (since December 2000)
Dr Patrick Flanagan, PhD, BSc, Environmental Protection Agency
Mr Oliver Fogarty, BE, CEng, MIEI, MCIWEM, Engineering Inspector, Department of the Environment and Local Government
Ms Dorothy Gallagher, Vice-Chair, Consumers’ Association of Ireland
Dr Gerard Gavin, Chief Dental Officer, Department of Health and Children
Ms Dora Hennessy, Principal Officer, Department of Health and Children (until April 2001)
Dr Howard Johnson, MRCPI, FFPHMI, Specialist in Public Health Medicine, Eastern Regional Health Authority
Professor Cecily Kelleher, Professor of Health Promotion, National University of Ireland, Galway
Mr Kevin Moyles, BSc, Regional Public Analyst, Dublin
Dr Joe Mullen, BDS, BA (Public Administration), BSc (Information Technology), MA (Healthcare Management), Principal Dental Surgeon, North Western Health Board
Professor Moira O’Brien, FRCPI, MA, FTCD, Professor of Anatomy, Trinity College, Dublin
Dr Máire O’Connor, MB, BCh, BAO, MRCPI, MPH, FFPHMI, MD, Specialist in Public Health Medicine, South Eastern Health Board and Faculty of Public Health Medicine, Ireland
Professor Denis O’Mullane, BDS, FDS, FFD, PhD, Head of Department of Oral Health and Development and Director of Oral Health Services Research Centre, University Dental School and Hospital, Cork.
Dr Carmel Parnell, BDS, MPH, Acting Senior Clinical Dental Surgeon, North Eastern Health Board, and Irish Dental Association
Professor Miriam Wiley, MSc (Econ), PhD, Head, Health Policy Research Centre, The Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin
Dr Miriam Owens, MB, MPH, MFPHMI, Rapporteur to the Forum
Ms Nessa O’Doherty, Secretary to the Forum, Department of Health and Children (until November 2001)
Dr Margaret Shannon, Forum Secretariat, Department of Health and Children
Mr Shane Devine, Secretary to the Forum, Department of Health and Children, (from November 2001)

weisses wrote: »

I quote the report again



So when i say fluoridation of the water supply has no positive effect on dental health


I actually state something from the report

The report that states:

Water fluoridation as well as topical fluoride applications (e.g. fluoridated toothpaste or varnish) appears to prevent caries, primarily on permanent dentition. No obvious advantage appears in favour of water fluoridation compared with topical prevention.

That one?

hju6

alastair wrote: »

It's a theory - but one that runs counter to the following:

During 1963 a representative sample of schoolchildren in Belfast was examined for dental decay using criteria similar to those being used in Britain at the time and similar to those adopted in the pre-fluoridation baseline surveys in the Republic of Ireland in 1961-63.

In 1983 a survey of children's dental health in the United Kingdom included an examination of a representative sample of children in Northern Ireland. The results of these surveys can be seen in Table 3.3 below. It can be seen in 1963 that the mean DMFT amongst 8,12 and 15 year olds in Northern Ireland was similar to that in the Republic of Ireland. Water fluoridation was introduced in the Republic of Ireland in 1964. Fluoride toothpaste was introduced in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland at the same time in the early 1970s. In 1983 the mean DMFT amongst 8,12 and 15 year olds in Northern Ireland was 1.5, 4.4 and 8.5 respectively. The corresponding figures in 1984 in the Republic of Ireland for life-time residents of fluoridated communities was 0.6, 2.6 and 4.1.

Recent data indicate that children and teenagers who are life-time residents of fluoridated communities in the Republic of Ireland (e.g. North Western Health Board) continue to experience considerably lower levels of dental decay than their counterparts in Northern Ireland. It is possible that various sociological, dietary and other factors account for part of this difference but it is reasonable to suggest that the major contributing factor is the fluoridation of public water supplies.

Which is a theory also

alastair

hju6 wrote: »

Which is a theory also

One supported by measurable outcomes. You think kids up north were overdosing on Veda, or that the kids in Cavan were keen toothbrush hobbyists?

Treora

alastair wrote: »

Worth pointing out that this is not a goverment report, indeed it's not even an agreed joint committee report. The committee didn't approve it's publishing, it probably does reflect John Gormley's views alright, but clearly didn't get committee approval.

Wow, you don't understand the concept of government. The cabinet alone is the government. A TD that is in a party that is in government, but not in the cabinet is just that.

Committee reports are not government reports, they are oireachtas committee reports.

A minister presenting a report to the rest of the cabinet make the report de jure and de facto a government report.

You failed your politics 101 course.

Treora

alastair wrote: »

It's a theory - but one that runs counter to the following:

In 1983 the mean DMFT amongst 8,12 and 15 year olds in Northern Ireland was 1.5, 4.4 and 8.5 respectively. The corresponding figures in 1984 in the Republic of Ireland for life-time residents of fluoridated communities was 0.6, 2.6 and 4.1.

And even dropped to 2.6 for 15 year olds by 2008, while Sweden/Denmark went from 2.8+ in 1984 to .8 in 2008. The only difference is that in 2001 Irish children were at 2~ @15 for DMFT. So we are getting worse from 2001 to 2008 inspite of water fluoridation.

alastair wrote: »

It's a theory - but one that runs counter to the following:

"In countries such as the Scandinavian countries, where public dental awareness is very high and alternative vehicles for fluoride (e.g. tooth paste) are widely available and widely used, a decision not to replace fluoride removed from the d(r)inking water would be of no consequence."
Profs Helen Whelton & Dennis O'Mullane
WHO report 2005 page 183


Dooh - Alastair fails.

jh79

The same Prof Whelton that endorsed fluoridation to the government.

jh79

Surely you remember doing a u-turn on the validity of her opinions earlier in the thread when it was pointed out she is pro fluoridation?

weisses

alastair wrote: »

You think so?

Which of these people are you pointing the finger at?

Pick one!

So you state that non of these people is pro fluoridation

alastair wrote: »

The report that states

Water fluoridation as well as topical fluoride applications (e.g. fluoridated toothpaste or varnish) appears to prevent caries, primarily on permanent dentition. No obvious advantage appears in favour of water fluoridation compared with topical prevention.

alastair wrote: »

That one?

You just made my point about contradictions in the report .... thanks

hju6

alastair wrote: »

One supported by measurable outcomes. You think kids up north were overdosing on Veda, or that the kids in Cavan were keen toothbrush hobbyists?

As no one can monitor the ammount of flouridated water each person consumes or the type of toothpaste and ammount of toothpaste applied, nor the availability of sugary foods and ammount consumed,

It's all theory and guesswork, and proves nothing except the result they were looking for at the time.

P.S I was brought up in a flouridated area, was forced to brush twice a day , as recommend , and had many fillings by the age of 15, as did many of my freinds,
I'm now 54 and have more teeth missing than present,

I blame flouride for the loss of my teeth, an overdose of it.

jh79

hju6 wrote: »

As no one can monitor the ammount of flouridated water each person consumes or the type of toothpaste and ammount of toothpaste applied, nor the availability of sugary foods and ammount consumed,

It's all theory and guesswork, and proves nothing except the result they were looking for at the time.

P.S I was brought up in a flouridated area, was forced to brush twice a day , as recommend , and had many fillings by the age of 15, as did many of my freinds,
I'm now 54 and have more teeth missing than present,

I blame flouride for the loss of my teeth, an overdose of it.

The amount of fluoride in water is monitored, 0.7ppm . The average person drinks about 2L of water giving 1.4mg of fluoride per day. Even if you consumed 3L that's still only 2.1 mg per day, approx 70 %.is excreted. Not much fluoride in fairness even without fluoridation you would probably consume 1mg per day from water. Feck all difference really.

hju6

jh79 wrote: »

The amount of fluoride in water is monitored, 0.7ppm . The average person drinks about 2L of water giving 1.4mg of fluoride per day. Even if you consumed 3L that's still only 2.1 mg per day, approx 70 %.is excreted. Not much fluoride in fairness even without fluoridation you would probably consume 1mg per day from water. Feck all difference really.

So that's approx 19,710 mg of industrial waste I've consumed over my life time,

jh79

hju6 wrote: »

So that's approx 19,710 mg of industrial waste I've consumed over my life time,

It's not industrial waste it's a fluoride ion and you would consume it whether we fluoridate or not.

jh79

hju6 wrote: »

So that's approx 19,710 mg of industrial waste I've consumed over my life time,

Just under a tablespoon assuming your figure is correct.

alastair

Treora wrote: »

Wow, you don't understand the concept of government. The cabinet alone is the government. A TD that is in a party that is in government, but not in the cabinet is just that.

Committee reports are not government reports, they are oireachtas committee reports.

A minister presenting a report to the rest of the cabinet make the report de jure and de facto a government report.

You failed your politics 101 course.

You need to work on your written comprehension. I said it wasn't a government report.

Gormley wasn't a minister or in government at the time. He was just a TD bringing a report to the table at a joint committee meeting.

alastair

Treora wrote: »

And even dropped to 2.6 for 15 year olds by 2008, while Sweden/Denmark went from 2.8+ in 1984 to .8 in 2008. The only difference is that in 2001 Irish children were at 2~ @15 for DMFT. So we are getting worse from 2001 to 2008 inspite of water fluoridation.



"In countries such as the Scandinavian countries, where public dental awareness is very high and alternative vehicles for fluoride (e.g. tooth paste) are widely available and widely used, a decision not to replace fluoride removed from the d(r)inking water would be of no consequence."
Profs Helen Whelton & Dennis O'Mullane
WHO report 2005 page 183


Dooh - Alastair fails.

Not quite - neither NI or the republic are Scandinavian, and the figures indicate that water fluoridation does make a difference here. The fact that Swedish kids are better at looking after their teeth is besides the point.

alastair

jh79 wrote: »

The same Prof Whelton that endorsed fluoridation to the government.

Yes. How does that prove any bias?

alastair

jh79 wrote: »

Surely you remember doing a u-turn on the validity of her opinions earlier in the thread when it was pointed out she is pro fluoridation?

I don't recall my doing any u-turn. A link would be helpful.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Pick one!

So you state that non of these people is pro fluoridation

I asked which of them you were pointing the finger at. It's you who claims the have evidence of members with an agenda.

weisses wrote: »

You just made my point about contradictions in the report .... thanks

Like I said - the report contains pros and cons, but it's summary clearly finds that water fluoridation is beneficial, albeit less effective than use of fluoride toothpaste.

alastair

hju6 wrote: »

As no one can monitor the ammount of flouridated water each person consumes or the type of toothpaste and ammount of toothpaste applied, nor the availability of sugary foods and ammount consumed,

It's all theory and guesswork, and proves nothing except the result they were looking for at the time.

P.S I was brought up in a flouridated area, was forced to brush twice a day , as recommend , and had many fillings by the age of 15, as did many of my freinds,
I'm now 54 and have more teeth missing than present,

I blame flouride for the loss of my teeth, an overdose of it.

Then you're engaging in wishful thinking. Fluoride doesn't cause teeth loss.

There are no compelling differentiators between the north and border counties over that period bar the introduction of fluoridation. The difference is down to fluoridation.

alastair

hju6 wrote: »

So that's approx 19,710 mg of industrial waste I've consumed over my life time,

It's not industrial waste.

Treora

alastair wrote: »

Gormley wasn't a minister or in government at the time.

Time of writing is not the time of submission. Until you can prove that he never placed it on the cabinet table while in office, you are wrong. And as cabinet confidentiality precludes anyone knowing, then you are wrong.

Please continue with your misinformation

alastair

Treora wrote: »

Time of writing is not the time of submission. Until you can prove that he never placed it on the cabinet table while in office, you are wrong. And as cabinet confidentiality precludes anyone knowing, then you are wrong.

Please continue with your misinformation

How embarrassing.

He submitted the paper on 11th Jan 2007 (after circulating drafts in 2006). He wasn't in government until the 14th of June that year. There was a general election in between. The document was never put before cabinet, being a (rejected) joint committee report.

Treora

alastair wrote: »

It's not industrial waste.

except from 1990 to 1991 and 1996 to 2005 when Albatross Fertilisers provided the fluoride from a waste source.

Treora

alastair wrote: »

How embarrassing.

He submitted the paper on 11th Jan 2007

He submitted it to the Dail then and later to the cabinet.

How embarrassing.

alastair

Treora wrote: »

except from 1990 to 1991 and 1996 to 2005 when Albatross Fertilisers provided the fluoride from a waste source.

It wasn't industrial waste then either, it was a byproduct. Same as whey is a byproduct of cheesemaking.

alastair

Treora wrote: »

He submitted it to the Dail then and later to the cabinet.

How embarrassing.

No he didn't. But feel free to keep digging. :P

weisses

alastair wrote: »

I asked which of them you were pointing the finger at. It's you who claims the have evidence of members with an agenda.

No it was Gormley/ committee who said it ... You said he was biased himself, So there is no one on that forum who could have a pro fluoradation mindset ?

On the basis of the available archive material the Committee believes that the original Fluorine consultative council did not approach its task with an open mind.It would appear to have had a very strong pro water fluoridation bias

They base their findings on actual archive material ... or are they lying ?

alastair wrote: »

Like I said - the report contains pros and cons, but it's summary clearly finds that water fluoridation is beneficial, albeit less effective than use of fluoride toothpaste.

What you say/think/believe is irrelevant now ... specially when i showed with a couple of examples that the (European) report has contradictions in it, which makes it not very scientific.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

No it was Gormley/ committee who said it ... You said he was biased himself, So there is no one on that forum who could have a pro fluoradation mindset ?

You (not Gormley) said:

I think when you research on who is on that forum you could reach the same conclusion

So - where's your evidence? Who is the suspect member of the forum?

weisses wrote: »

They base their findings on actual archive material ... or are they lying ?

'They'? It's Gormley's claim - and one not supported with any evidence.

weisses wrote: »

What you say/think/believe is irrelevant now ... specially when i showed with a couple of examples that the (European) report has contradictions in it, which makes it not very scientific.

It doesn't have any contradictions - it weighs the evidence and comes out with summary conclusions. No-one disputes that there are pros and cons in fluoridation strategies - and the report reflects that.