Looking for non-pseudoscientific Floride toxicology research

[Abooga]

A five second google search shows that "banned" is a gross overstatement. Most European countries may have never bothered with Fluoridation but that does not mean it was banned.
.

Let´s say "rejected" then. From your link:
"Many European countries have rejected water fluoridation in general. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland,[33] Scotland[34] Iceland, and Italy.[citation needed] A 2003 survey of over 500 Europeans from 16 countries concluded that "the vast majority of people opposed water fluoridation"

What I find annoying from this forum is that some posters treat anti fluorisationers like stupid conspiracy theorists, and that´s not the case. I´m all for science but I still distrust mandatory fluorisation. Seeing that so many countries have rejected it, it doesn´t seem such a crazy idea to be cautious about it... it´s not like science has never made mistakes before...

 

[Abooga]

It is sad that you have such an incompetent water department. But this does not make properly added Fluoride a danger, and the health benefits can be very good, especially in poor areas.

Show me the peer reviewed evidence that all water departments are to be trusted.

No, seriously, I wouldn´t want to trust nearly anyone with the responsability of adding dangerous chemicals to my water.

 

[Abooga]

You've asked that we discuss the subject at hand and not resort to name calling but to do that we need something to discuss.

As kookbreaker points out, Europe mostly hasn't banned fluoridation. In some countries it has never been introduced, in others (conveniently enough like the UK and Spain) it is in place for a proportion of the population.

Where it has been banned or withdrawn, the reasons given relate to personal liberty (Germany) or better delivery mechanisms (Sweden) rather than specific dangers.

Unless of course you can provide different information.

Of course the reasons for not fluorising the water were for its danger! Better delivery mechanisms because putting it on drinking water can be dangerous. personal liberty because you shouldn´t put dangerous chemicals in water that I cannot choose not to get on my tap etc.

According to the York study the evidence is incomplete at best. So there is still some margin of error. It is still possible that better studies can find that fluorised water is bad.

 

[Abooga]

And what about the babies? Somebody think about the babies!

Isn´t it true that one part in a million is too much for baby formula?

 

[RobDegraves]

@Abooga

What I find annoying from this forum is that some posters treat anti fluorisationers like stupid conspiracy theorists

If you stop acting like a conspiracy theorist, we might stop treating you like one. You posted four times in a row without a shred of actual science in any of them. Political decisions are not always based on science, and you are also misinterpreting what you are reading.

No, seriously, I wouldn´t want to trust nearly anyone with the responsability of adding dangerous chemicals to my water.

I take it you don't eat or drink anything in Europe then...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number

 

[Abooga]

@Abooga



If you stop acting like a conspiracy theorist, we might stop treating you like one. You posted four times in a row without a shred of actual science in any of them. Political decisions are not always based on science, and you are also misinterpreting what you are reading.]

I´m a conspiracy theorist because I posted four times in a row?

"without a shred of actual science in any of them"? does that mean anything?

"Political decisions are not always based on science, and you are also misinterpreting what you are reading" That´s why I posted in the forum, to get some constructive feedback...

 

[Abooga]

@Abooga
I take it you don't eat or drink anything in Europe then...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number

I said "I wouldn´t want to". I know I have little choice, in fact.

 

[quarky]

I know this point has been discussed, but remind me again:

With fluorides in the tooth paste, why add it to the water supply?

Not to sound all CT, but is their a possibility that certain industrial by-products are being sold, for dubious reasons, other than making more money?

 

[Weak Kitten]

From what I have gathered ingesting a certain amount of fluoride on a regular basis is good for your dental health. There seems to be a great deal of evidence to this effect since it is relatively simple to compare areas with fluoridated water to those which do not add fluoride to their water supplies. There are even studies that demonstrate that pregnant women should take some form of fluoride supplements.

There is a rather good article on Wikipedia about the controversy. It seems to theorize that much of the concern is about the lack of personal choice of water consumers about whether they are receiving fluoridated water or not. The article also points out that while European countries have mostly stopped fluoridating their water (it is a bit expensive) they now fluoridate their table salt thus continue to receive the dental benefits of increased fluoride intake.

 

[CORed]

Personally, adding flouride to water seems like a dumb move. No, not listing peer-review studies but if you want people to protect their teeth, teach them to brush well and so forth.

Even if the studies say the amount is Ok, I just don't see the benefit. You drink water. It does not stay on your teeth for long. Are they really suggesting adding flouride to your system is helpful?

IIRC, fluoridation (and the use of flouride in toothpaste) was done due to scientific observation of lower rates of tooth decay among people who drank water with natural fluoride, so I don't think there's really any doubt that fluoridation reduces tooth decay. Whether this justifies whatever negative effects (if any) result from fluoridation is another question, of course.

 

[CORed]

I'm not completely sure of the mechanism, but my understanding is that ingested fluoride becomes incorporated into bones and teeth (in the same manner that calcium would otherwise be deposited). This makes teeth more resistant to cavities and makes bone thicker in proper doses but somewhat more fragile...particularly when concentrations become too high. Fluoride has been used to treat osteoporosis.


I've seen that before, thanks. Hoping to find more than a single metastudy. Particularly interested in what negative effects from fluoride toxicity have been reasonably well established (beyond browning of the teeth) and at what concentrations. As well as which alleged effects have been....contraindicated?...by research.

Actually, fluoride substitutes for phosphate, rather than calcium (both are negative ions, and about the same size.

 

[dlorde]

I guess most European countries couldn´t find enough "peer-reviewed evidence of the absence of harmful effects of water fluoridation", since it is banned in most European countries.

Lack of water fluoridation is generally down to pressure of public opinion rather than any scientific evidence against it. Some countries fluoridate their salt instead. Many countries have a significant percentage of the population drinking naturally fluoridated water.

 

[CORed]

A five second google search shows that "banned" is a gross overstatement. Most European countries may have never bothered with Fluoridation but that does not mean it was banned.

Secondly, I tend to take EU health actions with a grain of salt. This is the same EU that is banning Silly Putty, you know.



It is sad that you have such an incompetent water department. But this does not make properly added Fluoride a danger, and the health benefits can be very good, especially in poor areas.

I doubt that he has an incompetent water department. "Chlorine" tastes and odors can result from byproducts of chlorine with organic substances in the water. Also, since chlorine is a highly reactive substance, the final available chlorine content can vary depending in composition of the treated water. The poster has presented no credible evidence that his water department is not trustworty.

 

[Lowpro]

Let´s say "rejected" then. From your link:
"Many European countries have rejected water fluoridation in general. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland,[33] Scotland[34] Iceland, and Italy.[citation needed] A 2003 survey of over 500 Europeans from 16 countries concluded that "the vast majority of people opposed water fluoridation"

What I find annoying from this forum is that some posters treat anti fluorisationers like stupid conspiracy theorists, and that´s not the case. I´m all for science but I still distrust mandatory fluorisation. Seeing that so many countries have rejected it, it doesn´t seem such a crazy idea to be cautious about it... it´s not like science has never made mistakes before...

Their rejection isn't based on a distrust of science it's a distrust of the method. Hell we could eliminate water fluoridation right now BUT we also would have to compensate for the lost effect by making sure more people brush and floss. Two exposures to fluoride a day are the the best ways to maximize effect.

Now what do you think is a safer method:

(1) delivering absolutely non-lethal fluoridated water (you'd die from water poisoning over a lifetime before any detrimental LD10 dosage of Fluoride)

(2) Trusting people to use concentrated fluoride toothpastes/mouthwash/foams exposing themselves to FAR more dosage varied by their behavior (or lack of behavior).

Honestly Fluoridated water is the most obvious choice here. It eliminated human fallibility and also does not expose them to dangerous dosages excluding accidents.

Those countries that reject fluoridation compensate for it or they develop more tooth decay.

And overall current fluorosis trends occur in a few ways:

Children using adult fluoridated products or just straight up eating toothpaste. Using fluoridation foam trays at home. Using whitening strips which are also fluoridated. Basically people are stupid and they're overexposing themselves and honestly oral health experts are dropping the ball when it comes to that education. The problem with fluoridation, if any, is that some people are just too stupid.

Oh if you want a paper on Fluorosis let me know, I've got plenty. I study Dental Public Health -.-

 

[kookbreaker]

Show me the peer reviewed evidence that all water departments are to be trusted.

Water departments are not working under peer review - they work to the results of peer review.

You might not like the taste of your water, but have you had any bacterial outbreaks? That's the true measure of a water department's effectiveness.

I shouldn't have called your water department incompetent, but I have seen water departments make clean water without a 'pool smell'. Yours might have to deal with a much higher level of bacteria than what others have to deal with.

No, seriously, I wouldn´t want to trust nearly anyone with the responsability of adding dangerous chemicals to my water.

They already do. If they didn't, the consequences would be much more dire.

 

[kookbreaker]

I know this point has been discussed, but remind me again:

With fluorides in the tooth paste, why add it to the water supply?

Not to sound all CT, but is their a possibility that certain industrial by-products are being sold, for dubious reasons, other than making more money?

No.

When you get into regions where there is a high level of poverty there are people who, either due to financial considerations or lack of education do not brush their teeth as much as they should - or at all.

Studies have shown in such regions fluoridation cuts down on cavities, a lot.

 

[kookbreaker]

Let´s say "rejected" then. From your link:
"Many European countries have rejected water fluoridation in general. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland,[33] Scotland[34] Iceland, and Italy.[citation needed] A 2003 survey of over 500 Europeans from 16 countries concluded that "the vast majority of people opposed water fluoridation"

Its a far cry from "banned". Frankly I am not impressed.

I haven't been to Europe a lot, and only to Germany & Austria and frankly fluoridating water would be kind of useless. Germans were almost ashamed of their drinking water and when visiting a German citizens house they would put a CASE full of mineral water for casual drinking. When a fellow traveller asked for (tap) water at a restaruant the waitress was rather shocked at the idea - this happened more than once.

Europe's water system is also much smaller than the US. Between that and the water drinking habits it just wasn't worthwhile.

Opposition doesn't mean anything except that someone has won a propaganda war.

 

[Abooga]

I doubt that he has an incompetent water department. "Chlorine" tastes and odors can result from byproducts of chlorine with organic substances in the water. Also, since chlorine is a highly reactive substance, the final available chlorine content can vary depending in composition of the treated water. The poster has presented no credible evidence that his water department is not trustworty.

I know I might be wrong, it´s only a local belief, that many people have. It really does feel that in the morning the chlorine concentration is higher (just open the faucet or flush the toilet and the smell of chlorine is overpowering). Some people say that the chlorine is added regularly but the use of water drops in the night so that´s why in the morning is more concentrated...

 

[Abooga]

Its a far cry from "banned". Frankly I am not impressed.

I haven't been to Europe a lot, and only to Germany & Austria and frankly fluoridating water would be kind of useless. Germans were almost ashamed of their drinking water and when visiting a German citizens house they would put a CASE full of mineral water for casual drinking. When a fellow traveller asked for (tap) water at a restaruant the waitress was rather shocked at the idea - this happened more than once.

Europe's water system is also much smaller than the US. Between that and the water drinking habits it just wasn't worthwhile.

Opposition doesn't mean anything except that someone has won a propaganda war.

So when water is fluorised it is thanks to good science and when it is not it is due to propaganda?

FROM WIKIPEDIA:
Safety
Main article: Water fluoridation#Safety

At the dosage recommended for water fluoridation, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development. This effect is mildly cosmetic and is unlikely (HOW UNLIKELY?)to represent any real effect on public health.[7] Fluoridation has little effect on risk of bone fracture (broken bones); it may result in slightly lower fracture risk than either excessively high levels of fluoridation or no fluoridation.[7] A major Australian study found no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma,[7] and other adverse effects lack sufficient evidence to reach a confident conclusion.[13]

The WHO set a general guideline of 1.5 mg/L concentration of fluoride in drinking water to avoid adverse effects of higher concentrations including severe dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis, as these effects were minimal at this concentration or lower.[14] In 2006, a 12-person U.S. National Research Council (NRC) committee reviewed the health risks associated with fluoride in the water[15] and unanimously concluded that the maximum contaminant level of 4 mg/L should be lowered. Although it did not comment on water fluoridation's safety, three of the panel members, namely Robert Isaacson, Kathleen Thiessen and Hardy Limeback, expressed[citation needed] their opposition to water fluoridation after the study[16][17] and the chair, John Doull, suggested that the issue should be reexamined.[18]

Because fluoride concentration is not controlled on an individual basis, opponents express concern for vulnerable populations such as children, nutritionally deficient individuals, and renally impaired individuals. The National Research Council states that children have a higher daily average intake than adults per kg of bodyweight.[15]:23 Those who perspire heavily or have kidney problems consume more water and thus also have a greater intake. A 2006 study found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males but not among females.[19] A 2009 analysis by the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stated that upon reviewing this and other similar studies, the weight of the evidence does not support a relationship. However, the CDC also calls for further research into this potential association to help support or refute the observation.[20] A study performed as a doctoral thesis, which was described as the most rigorous yet by the Washington Post, found a relationship among young boys,[21] but then the Harvard professor who advised the doctoral students determined that the results were not highly correlative enough to have evidentiary value; the professor then was investigated but exonerated by the federal government's Office of Research Integrity (ORI).[22]

An epidemiological connection between silicofluorides, an industrial byproduct which is used to fluoridate much of the U.S. water, and lead uptake in children was observed in a 2000 study.[23] A 2006 U.S. CDC-funded study was unable to replicate the results,[24] which the original researchers responded to in a 2007 rebuttal.[25] Aside from the lead connection, concerns are raised as to whether silicofluorides might have different effects on the body than sodium fluorides, and silicofluorides have not been rigorously tested for safety.BUT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE WATER ANYWAY

Well, reading that is not very reassuring, is it?

 

[Abooga]

Their rejection isn't based on a distrust of science it's a distrust of the method. Hell we could eliminate water fluoridation right now BUT we also would have to compensate for the lost effect by making sure more people brush and floss. Two exposures to fluoride a day are the the best ways to maximize effect.

Now what do you think is a safer method:

(1) delivering absolutely non-lethal fluoridated water (you'd die from water poisoning over a lifetime before any detrimental LD10 dosage of Fluoride)

(2) Trusting people to use concentrated fluoride toothpastes/mouthwash/foams exposing themselves to FAR more dosage varied by their behavior (or lack of behavior).

Oh if you want a paper on Fluorosis let me know, I've got plenty. I study Dental Public Health -.-

Ok then, show the peer reviewed evidence that toothpaste is more dangerous than fluoridated water...