Fluoride in tap water

whydave wrote: »

Well that makes it all okay (stranger on the internet) !

http://www.dohc.ie/other_health_issues/dental_research/evaluation.pdf?direct=1

Page 65

Slugs wrote: »

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_846.pdf

What I'm picking up here is that there's a sense that topical fluoride is beneficial, particularly where Fluoride is applied directly to the cavity. Fair enough... If we're ingesting the ****ing thing, how does that help?

Ingested fluoride is present in saliva, providing the topical benefit.
Ingested fluoride is incorporated into the structure of teeth as they develop initially. Fluoride in tooth enamel means that the teeth are more resistant to acid and damage from plaque organisms.

bobafettucine wrote: »

Ingested fluoride is present in saliva, providing the topical benefit.
Ingested fluoride is incorporated into the structure of teeth as they develop initially. Fluoride in tooth enamel means that the teeth are more resistant to acid and damage from plaque organisms.

Page No.?

jh79 wrote: »

The same way mouthwash works, it has to mix with your saliva and makes contact with your teeth as you drink it. It is proven to reduce cavities when added to the water supply.

But we don't drink Mouthwash. In fact, it's a rinse and repeat job. Furthermore, I thought the whole purpose of rinsing out your mouth with water afterwards was to remove any excess mouthwash in your mouth.

Could you please give me a study that shows it is beneficial when added to the water supply? I'm only finding evidence to support its topical application

Don't worry about where tbe fluoride comes from it's all the same in the end. This is only highlighted by websites who are trying to frighten people who don't understand how chemistry works.

It's enough of a point that the report felt it necessary to mention it. It doesn't mention the name of the company? Tinfoil hat bull**** aside, why is the company's name not mentioned?

http://www.dohc.ie/other_health_issues/dental_research/evaluation.pdf?direct=1 (P. 65) wrote:

Hydrofluosilicic acid is sourced from a company in Bilboa, Spain. It is not a by-product
of any industrial process.

bobafettucine wrote: »

Try the York Report.
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/summary.pdf

"The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean change in dmft/DMFT score. The studies were of moderate quality (level , but of limited quantity. The degree to which caries is reduced, however, is not clear from the data available. The range of the mean difference in the proportion (%) of caries-free children is -5.0 to 64%, with a median of 14.6% (interquartile range 5.05, 22.1%). The range of mean change in dmft/DMFT score was from 0.5 to 4.4, median 2.25 teeth (interquartile range 1.28, 3.63 teeth). It is estimated that a median of six people need to receive fluoridated water for one extra person to be caries-free (interquartile range of study NNTs 4, 9). The best available
evidence from studies following withdrawal of water fluoridation indicates that caries prevalence increases, approaching the level of the low fluoride group."

Brief summary: The current evidence suggests that it works.

Any indication of the studies used in that report? I'd like a list.

What commercially sensitive reasons can we come up with for that? And FoI?

Slugs wrote: »

What commercially sensitive reasons can we come up with for that? And FoI?

Because the irish state is not a customer of the company in Bilbao, and maybe Albatros didn't want that information given out because it would make it easier for another company to steal their business. This really should not require an explanation though.

FoI = Freedom Of Information.
You could try requesting the information under the freedom of information act, but my guess is you would run up against the same problems of commercial confidentiality.

Hard to be pro Floride or believe in safe level use when most of Europe has banned the process or simply doesn't use it.
Have their views changed recently? Apparently no real evidence to provide indication of safe use for long periods even at these low levels according to statements issues by countries not using floridation?

And in countries who do do use it who regulates these levels and how exactly do they do it?

Doesn't it seem reasonable that alternative methods for caring for teeth and cavities are now well established and easily available.
With so much of europe not using Floridation can we see some statistics on cavity rates between those countries using floride and those not - surely by now some clear data must be available.
If this data is not absolutely convincing should't the question be why is it necessary to add floride to water when Countries without it are not experiencing difficulties.


Steve

King Mob wrote: »

Fluoridation is not banned in any country.

Why does the anti fluoridation crowd need to keep repeating lies like that to convince people?

Most Countries Reject Water Fluoridation


Statements from European and other Health, Water, & Environment
Authorities on Water Fluoridation

Austria:


“Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.”
(M. Eisenhut, Head of Wate
r
Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas
-
und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A
-
1015 Wien, Austria,
February 17, 2000).


Belgium:


“This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The
main reaso
n for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver
medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
(Chr. Legros, Directeur,
Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 20
00)
.


China:


Fluoridation is banned: “not allowed”


Naturally high fluoride levels in water are a serious problem in China.


“Bartram said there were many other ‘silent threats,’ including excessive fluoride in the water supply in China,
India and the Rif
t Valley in Africa. In China alone, 30 million people suffer crippling skeletal fluorosis.”
(Jamie
Bartram, Coordinator of the WHO's Water, Sanitation and Health Program, March 22, 2002)


The Chinese government now considers any water supply containing ove
r 1 ppm fluoride a risk for skeletal
fluorosis.
(Bo Z, et al. (2003). Distribution and risk assessment of fluoride in drinking water in the West Plain
region of Jilin Province, China.
Environmental Geochemistry and Health
25: 421
-
431.)


In China, the World
Health Organization has estimated that 2.7 million people have the crippling form of
skeletal fluorosis.


Czech Republic:


“Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech
Republic. Although flu
oridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration
because this form of supplementation is considered:

•

uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for
hygiene et
c. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for
drinking (underground water usually with fluor)

•

unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)

•

unethical (“forced medication”)

•

toxicologically a
nd physiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of
supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health
-
threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of
fluor in water into non biological active
forms of fluor.”
(Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999).


Denmark:


“We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic
fluori
des have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been
fluoridated.”
(Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999).



Finland:


“We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water
. There are better ways of providing the fluoride
our teeth need.”
(Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000).


“Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuo
pio,
situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population).
Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual
grounds for the resistance p
resented in this context were an individual’s right to drinking water without
additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of “force
-
feeding” was
also mentioned.


Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finl
and but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to
practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water.”
(Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland,
January 12, 1996.)


France:


“Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to
ethical as well as medical considerations.”
(Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l’Environment, August
25,
2000).


Germany:


“Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions
to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general
permission of fluo
ridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication.”
(Gerda
Hankel
-
Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999).



Hungary:


Stopped fluoridating for technical reasons in the 1960s. However, despite techno
logical advances, Hungary has
chosen to remain unfluoridated.


India:


Naturally high levels of fluorides in groundwater have affected at least tens of millions with skeletal fluorosis,
often resulting in crippling skeletal fluorosis. The Indian governmen
t has been working to
remove
the fluorides
from drinking water sources to alleviate this crisis. In India, 17 of its 32 states have been identified as
“endemic” areas, with an estimated 66 million people at risk from crippling skeletal fluorosis and 6 mil
lion
people seriously afflicted.


Israel:


Recently suspended mandatory fluoridation until the issue is reexamined from all aspects: medical,
environmental, ethical and legal. “From our experience in Israel and the world when the fluoride issue is
studied
from all aspects it is rejected.”
(
Representative Shimon Tsuk,
Israeli Parliament)


June 21, 2006: The labor, welfare and health Knesset (Israeli Parliament) committee called on the ministry of
health to freeze the extension of the fluoridation of drinkin
g water in Israel and to study the issue in depth in
order to determine whether to continue with the project or to cancel it completely. Conclusions are to be
expected within a year. Until then, municipalities and Mekorot (Israel national water company) ar
e not required
to build new fluoride installations.


Committee Chairman MK (Member of Knesset) Moshe Sharoni and MKs Ran Cohen and David Tal claimed
during the investigation that the potential damage to public health and environment from fluoridation may b
e
greater than the benefits from decreased dental cavities.




Japan:


Rejected fluoridation: “...may cause health problems....” The 0.8
-
1.5 mg regulated level is for calcium
-
fluoride, not the hazardous waste by
-
product which is added with artificial fluor
idation.


Luxembourg:


“Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water
isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their
own to us
e the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs.”
(Jean
-
Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L’Environment, May 3, 2000).


Netherlands:


“From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1
970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands
was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and
co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal ba
sis for
fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis
for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for
this amendment and the propo
sal was withdrawn.”
(Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking
Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000).


Northern Ireland:


“The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where
fluoride
was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for
operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern
Ireland.”
(C.J. Grimes, Department for Regio
nal Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000).


Norway:


“In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that
drinking water should not be fluoridated.”
(Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa State
ns institutt for
folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000).



Scotland:


In November 2004, after months of consultation, Scotland
-
which had been unfluoridated
-
rejected plans to
add fluoride to the nation’s water.


Sw
eden:


“Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental
health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown.”
(Gunnar Guzikowski,
Chief Government Inspector, Livsm
edels Verket
--
National Food Administration Drinking Water Division,
Sweden, February 28, 2000).



Switzerland:


In April 9, 2003, the City Parliament of Basel, Switzerland voted 73 to 23 to stop Basel’s 41 year water
fluoridation program. Basel was the
only city in Switzerland to fluoridate its water, and the only city in
continental western Europe, outside of a few areas in Spain.

(a messy paste, im sorry, just happened like that. Still readable tho.)

King Mob wrote: »

There's a difference between not fluoridating and banning fluoridation.

Not a single country on your list bans fluoridation.

Saying it's banned is a distortion of the truth common with anti-fluoridation advocates.

Lets not have a play on words my friend.

Lets give the people the proper information available and let them come to their own conclusions.

King Mob wrote: »

I'm all for that too, but saying something is banned when it is not is not telling the truth. No country has banned it.

Some don't do it for various reasons, others never bothered in the first place. So why say it is banned?

The only reason I can see that someone might is because they want it to sound more dramatic and scary than it actually is.

Only one side in this debate is relying on lies, hyperbole and ignorance of science to give people the proper information available.

And what a warrior you are to stay up this late and defend the use of fluoride in the public tap water of ireland.

Kudos.

2003 WHO Oral Health report report - http://www.who.int/oral_health/media/en/orh_report03_en.pdf

Page 18 - Australia, U.S. and Brazil all fluoridate. Europe is a mix, some do some don't, and some, such as Sweden, have prohibited it according to the wiki (take that for what you will).

China did and stopped, and has one of the lowest level of cavities despite having a dense population.

So what does that show us?

That water fluoridation has negligible effect on cavities.

http://www.mah.se/CAPP/Country-Oral-Health-Profiles/EURO/

Very interesting, particularly when you compare countries that do fluoridate against those that don't. What you see overall is a general trend towards less cavity issues regardless of fluoridation of the water supply.

I take from this that a decrease in cavities is more to do with an increase in sanitation and oral healthcare than the addition of fluoride to the water supply.

Examples:
Germany, does not fluoridate - 0.7 DMFT in 2009
Austria, does not fluoridate - 1.4 DMFT in 2007
Greece, does not fluoridate - 1.35 DMFT 2006 - 2007
Ireland, does and doesn't (I assume this is a comparison between north and south - 1.8 (NF) and 1.1 (F) DMFT in 2002*
U.K. Small percentage receives fluoridation - 0.7 DMFT in 2009

China, does not fluoridate - 0.5 DMFT in 2005
Hong Kong, fluoridates - 0.8 DMFT in 2001


*Now, before you point out that Fluoridated is a lower statistic, I'd like to highlight the fact that both have experienced a decrease of 1.5 DMFT from 1984 to 2002, again, I believe, an increase of oral healthcare and sanitation.

King Mob wrote: »

These countries do practice fluoridation, just with other methods such as fluoridating milk and salt.

The best way to determine the effectiveness of fluoridation is not to engage in amateur statistics, but to look at the specific studies done on the effectiveness of fluoridation.
These have been posted and these show that it is effective.

But now if we are just debating the relative effectiveness of fluoridation vs other methods, why do so on the conspiracy theories forum?
Why not just present the evidence you your guys feel shows that fluoridation is less effective and use that to argue for it's discontinuation?

Did I not just do that? Did I not just provide you with evidence to support that the fluoridation of the water supply does not meaningfully contribute to a decrease in DMFT? Or are we dismissing that as "Amateur statistics" despite the fact that these statistics are used by the WHO?