Fluoride in tap water

weisses · 01-05-2014 12:03PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It doesn't matter because they were incapable of putting it in their paper.

Then how was i able to find the levels ?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you accept that the iodine/fluoride paper is fatally flawed then?

Based on what you are suggesting ........ Nope

weisses · 01-05-2014 12:06PM

jh79 wrote: »

The first link from the pro fluoridation website accounts for confounders.

The research that stays within countries limits the variables. Check the other links for the pro website.

If you could post a direct link dealing with the variables thanks? don't want to risk talking about different things

weisses · 01-05-2014 12:07PM

jh79 wrote: »

lack of interest in dental hygiene is not the same as no dental hygiene.

So a small campaign in dental awareness will do the trick ..... Just as they did in surrounding countries ... saves us millions per year

01-05-2014 12:10PM

For a long time, the systemic effect of fluoride was regarded to be most important, resulting in recommendations to use fluoride supplements such as tablets or drops. However, there is increasing evidence that the local effect of fluoride at the surface of the erupted teeth is by far more important.”
SOURCE: Zimmer S, et al. (2003). Recommendations for the Use of Fluoride in Caries Prevention. Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry 1: 45-51.

From the above source Weisses provided;

The fluoride uptake from salt or water is low and the benefit is small but on the other hand the entire population will benefit....can be considered as an important public health measure.

Dan_Solo · 01-05-2014 12:19PM

weisses wrote: »

Based on what you are suggesting ........ Nope

This is good stuff now.
So you are willing to accept research on the "dangers" of fluoridation that do not give the fluoridation levels.
Why bother looking at research papers at all then if you don't care about the fluoridation levels?

01-05-2014 12:20PM

weisses wrote: »

If you could post a direct link dealing with the variables thanks? don't want to risk talking about different things

Think you miss understand what dealing with the variables means. The effect of variables is limited by comparing area's with similar make ups in terms of diet wealth etc.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-12-1122.pdf

http://www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/1303/m537918_v1_nsaoh%20fluoridation%20paper.pdf

01-05-2014 12:22PM

weisses wrote: »

So a small campaign in dental awareness will do the trick ..... Just as they did in surrounding countries ... saves us millions per year

Again are you doubting the effectiveness or need for fluoridation? Two separate discussions.

i57dwun4yb1pt8 · 01-05-2014 12:29PM

there is no need for it in water - no need for enforced medication dental or other wise .

flouride isnt going to help save the teeth of someone who refuses to clean them , its a pointless exercise .
so why the hell push the stuff ?

If we pay for water , like we pay for food , we expect it to be untainted by pointless chemicals or have the choice of picking what we want
there needs to be choice / opt out.

anyone with a bit of common sense would avoid having a pointless chemical forced on them .

Dan_Solo · 01-05-2014 12:31PM

DaDumTish wrote: »

anyone with a bit of common sense would avoid having a pointless chemical forced on them .

It's not pointless. It improves dental health. This is well proven.

01-05-2014 12:33PM

Another one

"The caries reduction observed in the Blue Mountains corresponds to the high end of rate reductions reported elsewhere and demonstrates the substantial benefits of water fluoridation."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2009.01164.x/full

Dan_Solo · 01-05-2014 12:34PM

DaDumTish wrote: »

there is no need for it in water - no need for enforced medication dental or other wise .

If God forbid you were in a car crash, would you prefer not to have medical attention if you were unconscious? That would also be enforced medication.

01-05-2014 12:36PM

Another one , not full text unfortunately but relevant as we have high sugar consumption levels.

"Consumption of SSBs should be considered a major risk factor for dental caries. However, increased exposure to fluoridated public water helped ameliorate the association between SSB consumption and dental decay. These results reconfirm the benefits of community water fluoridation for oral health."

01-05-2014 12:39PM

More from Oz,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925001/pdf/phr125000655.pdf

weisses · 01-05-2014 01:00PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This is good stuff now.

What where the levels ?

The ones that where available but you couldn't find

weisses · 01-05-2014 01:00PM

jh79 wrote: »

Think you miss understand what dealing with the variables means. The effect of variables is limited by comparing area's with similar make ups in terms of diet wealth etc.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-12-1122.pdf

http://www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/1303/m537918_v1_nsaoh%20fluoridation%20paper.pdf

Why do you think SCHER didnt count in these variables ?

weisses · 01-05-2014 01:05PM

jh79 wrote: »

Again are you doubting the effectiveness

It was you who said that fluoridation by itself is NOT effective

jh79 wrote: »

Fluoridation is not effective on its own

jh79 wrote: »

or need for fluoridation? Two separate discussions.

Need for fluoridation is not there ... Ireland is the only country in Europe who mass fluoridate .... and believe me Ireland is not that much different then the rest of western europe

weisses · 01-05-2014 01:08PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It's not pointless. It improves dental health. This is well proven.

Not according to JH79 who states Fluoridation is not effective on its own

weisses · 01-05-2014 01:12PM

jh79 wrote: »

Another one

"The caries reduction observed in the Blue Mountains corresponds to the high end of rate reductions reported elsewhere and demonstrates the substantial benefits of water fluoridation."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2009.01164.x/full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15153698

Or do you dismiss this again because of the variables ?

Same as you did with the 30 supported quotes i posted stating the complete opposite

Penn · 01-05-2014 01:12PM

This thread is repeatedly descending into circular arguments. At this point, I fail to see any reason to keep it open. Some of you think one thing, some of you think the opposite, and both sides can find or interpret data which they feel backs up their argument. However the thread has turned into an ongoing argument rather than a discussion. From the Charter:

Charter wrote:

This isn't a competition. If you're here to win arguments, you're probably in the wrong place. If you're here to mock or antagonize others for what they believe, you're definitely in the wrong place. Using "point-scoring" phrases such as asking other posters to admit that they are wrong, admit you are right, bringing up past things where a poster was wrong, claiming they can't answer your question etc will be viewed as being antagonistic towards other posters and will be actionable by infractions or bans. This is a discussion forum, not a competition.

Thread Locked.

Fluoride in tap water

Comments