Looking for non-pseudoscientific Floride toxicology research

[Lowpro]

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

>.>

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy3.lhl.uab.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1752-7325.1997.tb02966.x/pdf

I mean feel free to peruse all of JPHD dude. You have a serious problem with your crusade and that's a matter of exposure. For kids, toothpaste definitely overexposes, with or without fluoridated water. This is even worse (potentially) in areas that use or used fluoridation pill treatments in lieu of community fluoridated water.

In comparison the benefits of fluoridated water are almost in every study researching it. DMFS is lower in fluoridated communities that's almost always the trend. A lot of fluorosis cannot be traced to drinking water unless there was an accident ( I can think of one that occurred in Alabama 10+ years ago) but at the proper levels it's hard to tell because it's in the noise. The additive effects of topical fluoride foams are hard to determine because it's not a community program so it becomes an individual examination; it has lower external validity.

I mean I'm not going to bust your chops over copy-pasting Wikipedia but I have Hardy Limeback's papers (a few anyways) and he does not support removing water fluoridation treatments.

Also you may want to read up on what contamination refers to (hint: it aint what we are adding to it, it's an environmental hazard...)

Do you understand that (A) the danger is relative especially with the benefits of fluoridated water (Seriously do you know how many migration studies are conducted of people leaving fluoridated areas developing dental caries and vice versa and how at the same time Fluorosis did NOT change?). It ain't the water unless it's contaminated. It's another source or perhaps a host factor. Probably multifactoral.

 

[kookbreaker]

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

This bit you show below is an excellent example of propaganda at work. I will demonstrate:

FROM WIKIPEDIA:
Safety
Main article: Water fluoridation#Safety

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]

OK, you see that? Right there where it says CONTAMINANT. That means that they recommended to locations where there was naturally higher concentrations of fluoride in the water should have it lowered by treatment methods.

The rest of this you just tried to highlight what you thought were the scary bits.

 

[Abooga]

>.>

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy3.lhl.uab.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1752-7325.1997.tb02966.x/pdf

I mean feel free to peruse all of JPHD dude. You have a serious problem with your crusade and that's a matter of exposure. For kids, toothpaste definitely overexposes, with or without fluoridated water. This is even worse (potentially) in areas that use or used fluoridation pill treatments in lieu of community fluoridated water.

In comparison the benefits of fluoridated water are almost in every study researching it. DMFS is lower in fluoridated communities that's almost always the trend. A lot of fluorosis cannot be traced to drinking water unless there was an accident ( I can think of one that occurred in Alabama 10+ years ago) but at the proper levels it's hard to tell because it's in the noise. The additive effects of topical fluoride foams are hard to determine because it's not a community program so it becomes an individual examination; it has lower external validity.

I mean I'm not going to bust your chops over copy-pasting Wikipedia but I have Hardy Limeback's papers (a few anyways) and he does not support removing water fluoridation treatments.

Also you may want to read up on what contamination refers to (hint: it aint what we are adding to it, it's an environmental hazard...)

Do you understand that (A) the danger is relative especially with the benefits of fluoridated water (Seriously do you know how many migration studies are conducted of people leaving fluoridated areas developing dental caries and vice versa and how at the same time Fluorosis did NOT change?). It ain't the water unless it's contaminated. It's another source or perhaps a host factor. Probably multifactoral.

Yes I understand that most of the evidence points to fluoridation being safe.

I understand that.

However I´m still against it.

Main reasons:

- Insufficient evidence.
For example: "In 2006, a 12-person U.S. National Research Council (NRC) committee reviewed the health risks associated with fluoride in the water[15] [...] 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"

Or the York study. "Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken"

- Dosage control.
Are people who live in fluorated areas told that they don´t need fluoride toothpaste? Are they told not to use tap water for baby formula?

-Precautionary principle.
Treating a non life-threatening ailment (tooth decay) with a substance that may (even if highly unlikely) be detrimental to health.

-Ethics.
"Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, opposes water fluoridation.[39][40] He took part in the debate in Sweden, where he helped to convince Parliament that it should be illegal due to ethics. He believes that it violates modern pharmacological principles, which indicate that medications should be tailored to individuals."

 

[Lowpro]

- Dosage control.
Are people who live in fluorated areas told that they don´t need fluoride toothpaste? Are they told not to use tap water for baby formula?

-Precautionary principle.
Treating a non life-threatening ailment (tooth decay) with a substance that may (even if highly unlikely) be detrimental to health.

-Ethics.
"Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, opposes water fluoridation.[39][40] He took part in the debate in Sweden, where he helped to convince Parliament that it should be illegal due to ethics. He believes that it violates modern pharmacological principles, which indicate that medications should be tailored to individuals."

Snipped portions are not ignored though honestly I think we need to investigate the Council claims; Limeback has done a LOT of pediatric research with regards to Fluoride and he absolutely is not against the practice as far as I can tell. Something tells me there's more to the claim than the Wiki article says.

As far as dosage control I completely agree. Fluoride treatment should be a broad discipline discussion; not just for oral health professionals but for medical health professionals too. Even primary care physicians can perform fluorosis screenings. It's in need of a change in that respect but via advocacy. Removing water fluoridation will have a negative impact on oral health that's a fact.

Also life-threatening is not "quality of life" threatening like Tooth Decay is. DMFS factors have been associated with lower quality of life among adults and seniors for decades. Fluoride poisoning has not been associated with community water fluoridation alone and from what I've read only happen in association with endemic fluoride levels.

Public Health is interested in the weight of beneficience and justice (distribution of burden) and Community Fluoridation covers that. I know you don't like water fluoridation; go somewhere without it then. Take what knowledge I've given you to manage your own oral care how you see fit. Find a dentist you trust and ask them how you can modify your behavior in order to achieve your health goal. Or get a degree in Public Health even; you'll learn a lot a more qualified voice! Plus an education pays for itself.

Also Arvid, if going by just your quote, is an idiot then. Community Fluoridation is a community treatment not a pharmacological treatment. Trying to tailor it to individuals is not feasible and instead. Instead educating people on managing THEIR dosage is what will matter.

 

[Abooga]

I live in a non fluorated area, so I´m quite relaxed about it for now. But I´m afraid they might want to introduce it at some point, and knowing how incompetent our government is I wanted to know more in advance.

My wife is a dentist. As I often say, (joking) I don´t even need to brush my teeth, why waste so much time if she can fix them for free!.

The dentists I know (I know several) don´t have much idea about science and they repeat unquestioningly what they have learned at some point about fluorisation being safe.

But it doesn´t seem like a total consensus has been reached, and there are problems like dosage etc. so I´ll stay unconvinced for now.

 

[Lowpro]

I live in a non fluorated area, so I´m quite relaxed about it for now. But I´m afraid they might want to introduce it at some point, and knowing how incompetent our government is I wanted to know more in advance.

My wife is a dentist. As I often say, (joking) I don´t even need to brush my teeth, why waste so much time if she can fix them for free!.

The dentists I know (I know several) don´t have much idea about science and they repeat unquestioningly what they have learned at some point about fluorisation being safe.

But it doesn´t seem like a total consensus has been reached, and there are problems like dosage etc. so I´ll stay unconvinced for now.

Whatever chief. Make sure you're using fluoridated toothpaste twice a day and make sure you're salivating enough.

Otherwise I do recommend you get a degree in Public Health so at least you have some scruples when you make a claim about health risks due to your convictions rather than weighing the pros and cons.

 

[Abooga]

My only claim is that I´m unconvinced. And seeing that some studies (York etc.) question the quality of the evidence, I don´t think I´m being unreasonable. I´m not campaigning against it or anything, just want more info, since I don´t have the time to "get a degree in Public Health". Chief.

 

[krx]

One big difference between Europe and the US is that many countries in Europe has free dental healthcare. In Sweden it's up to and including the year you turn nineteen. In the US, only 1% of the dentists work in public health, so poor people and their kids have a hard time seeing a dentist on a regular basis.

We're going to have a vote about fluoridating Portland's communal water supply (CWS), in May. Last year the city council voted 5 to 0, in favor of fluoridation. Frankly, one of the reasons for the overwhelming vote in favor, was because the anti side couldn't provide credible sources for their claims.
The only reason why we are having a vote, is because the anti side managed to get 30,000 votes, using hordes of unemployed leftovers from the Wall Street movement.

I have seen all kinds of misinformation concerning fluoridation, and I try my best to provide evidence based information, in my role as a volunteer for the pro side. Furthermore, there are over 80 healthcare organizations that support fluoridation of Portland's CWS, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Dental Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the World Health Organization, to name a few.

On a side note, Arvid's son is on a crusade to stop fluoridation in Portland.

 

[quarky]

I honestly don't have a horse in this race, but here's my last ditch devil's advocate spewage:

Wouldn't it do a lot more good to educate people about the dangers of certain foods and beverages, as per their dental health?

In doing so, wouldn't that also contribute to overall health; especially diabetes; obesity, and such?

 

[quarky]

re-do

 

[krx]

I honestly don't have a horse in this race, but here's my last ditch devil's advocate spewage:

Wouldn't it do a lot more good to educate people about the dangers of certain foods and beverages, as per their dental health?

In doing so, wouldn't that also contribute to overall health; especially diabetes; obesity, and such?

Absolutely! And dentists and public health figures educate parents and patients, ad nauseum. But unfortunately people don't listen, and that's why Portland has a dental crisis, compared to fluoridated areas in America. More than 200 million Americans have access to fluoridated water.

Furthermore, despite doctors advising patients about their diet, we still have an obesity epidemic of unmatched proportions in the US.

 

[quarky]

Point taken.

In defense, I'm not obese, but my teeth are horrible.

 

[kookbreaker]

re-do

I did answer you on #56 ya know.

 

[quarky]

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.

Yes.

I acknowledge your point.

Yet, it is complex.

Must we have safety-valves for insane behavior?

Or, should we address the insane behavior?

It reminds me of Olestra.

We can't help eating mega-loads of potato chips; we become obese; we get diseases.

So, Olestra.

Anal leakage, be damned.

Now, it's mostly gone.

But we get fatter.
Our teeth rot.
Our children are impatient.
Treat their brains with ritalin; treat their teeth with fluorides.

Hopefully, my point makes a lick of sense.

If not,
I'm fairly happy to yield.
Especially to someone like you.

(You're something of a rock-star to me, because of your store.)

 

[krx]

Everyone is benefited by fluoride, not only kids. It's a complex problem, and there are many solutions to tooth decay, but fluoride is a good start and foundation to combat caries. As you get older the gum line recedes and expose the softer parts of your teeth, fluoride helps that too.

The cost benefit analyses for adding fluoride is staggering. For every $1 of added fluoride in your community water supply, you get $38 back in better dental health. Thirty eight freaking bucks!

 

[Abooga]

[...] I try my best to provide evidence based information[...]

Is that the same evidence that the York study found "of little high quality"?

Wouldn´t the precautionary principle require to wait until the evidence is completely reliable before implementing fluoridation ?

 

[Lowpro]

Is that the same evidence that the York study found "of little high quality"?

Wouldn´t the precautionary principle require to wait until the evidence is completely reliable before implementing fluoridation ?

Yea that happened more than fifty years ago and since then more evidence has demonstrated that fluoridated water has been not only safe but effective as well. I'm sure York found some studies of little quality and I'd need to know more about what he was referring to. The fact that we see a VERY low number of fluoridation poisoning so from a risk-benefit standpoint of COURSE you fluoridate the water. You could even remove it and OF COURSE you'd do something different then however fluoridated water removes the problem of individual behavior and adoption; superseding idiocy is a community prerogative you know.

Believe me, having a hard on for someone's thoughts rather than investigating them will get you nowhere. Rather than repeating York's claims, go investigate them and bring that here. Demonstrate to me that you deserve to talk your talk. What did York take issue with? Was it methods? Was it just the fact that fluoride is already overexposed so fluoridation (A) is outmoded now / (B) levels are too difficult to maintain? Is it really because Fluoride is poisonous therefor cannot be used for treatment? Is it because ingested fluoride versus topical fluoride have varying outcomes depending on the study? Does he talk about what you think the problem actually is or was he being specific to something?

I need to know that, and I cannot find it. I am hoping you know more so I trust you to help me find out what York's issue is.

 

[Stomatopoda]

Wouldn't it do a lot more good to educate people about the dangers of certain foods and beverages, as per their dental health?

In doing so, wouldn't that also contribute to overall health; especially diabetes; obesity, and such?

Certainly. It's not an either/or dilemma, though.

 

[Tomblvd]

I live in a non fluorated area, so I´m quite relaxed about it for now. But I´m afraid they might want to introduce it at some point, and knowing how incompetent our government is I wanted to know more in advance.

What part of the world do you live in?

My wife is a dentist. As I often say, (joking) I don´t even need to brush my teeth, why waste so much time if she can fix them for free!.

The dentists I know (I know several) don´t have much idea about science and they repeat unquestioningly what they have learned at some point about fluorisation being safe.

If you are going to succeed in this charade, you might want to learn the proper terminology. It is "fluoridation", not "fluorisation". And water is "fluoridated", not "fluorised". I have a very, very hard time believing you are married to a dentist, let alone know others who "don´t have much idea about science".

But it doesn´t seem like a total consensus has been reached, and there are problems like dosage etc. so I´ll stay unconvinced for now.

So, do you support governments removing fluoride from water supplies where the concentrations are above the recommended limit?

 

[Abooga]

Yea that happened more than fifty years ago and since then more evidence has demonstrated that fluoridated water has been not only safe but effective as well. I'm sure York found some studies of little quality and I'd need to know more about what he was referring to. The fact that we see a VERY low number of fluoridation poisoning so from a risk-benefit standpoint of COURSE you fluoridate the water. You could even remove it and OF COURSE you'd do something different then however fluoridated water removes the problem of individual behavior and adoption; superseding idiocy is a community prerogative you know.

Believe me, having a hard on for someone's thoughts rather than investigating them will get you nowhere. Rather than repeating York's claims, go investigate them and bring that here. Demonstrate to me that you deserve to talk your talk. What did York take issue with? Was it methods? Was it just the fact that fluoride is already overexposed so fluoridation (A) is outmoded now / (B) levels are too difficult to maintain? Is it really because Fluoride is poisonous therefor cannot be used for treatment? Is it because ingested fluoride versus topical fluoride have varying outcomes depending on the study? Does he talk about what you think the problem actually is or was he being specific to something?

I need to know that, and I cannot find it. I am hoping you know more so I trust you to help me find out what York's issue is.

The York study is 13 years old, not 50. I´m not qualified and don´t have time to study it in detail, I just came here to see if anyone could shed some light as to why it claims that the evidence is poor, since there seems to be some "experts" on this issue in this forum. It just seems like a pretty comprehensive study to simply ignore it, that´s all.