Water fluoridation is back on gov agenda big press on alleged benefits and many mentions of naturally occurring fluoride,
The chemicals added to your water are hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride which are in effect industrial waste. see fluoridealert.org/ for more info.
Hi hsittreated
You haven't mentioned whether those chemicals are actually dangerous in the microscopic quantities used or not. Just because something is a byproduct of an industrial process does not mean they are harmful or that they cannot be beneficial.
More information here:
The excellent Behind the Headlines takes an evidence-based look at the impact of adding fluoride to the water supply. Verdict? According to a recent Public Health England study “water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure.”
nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pa...
well thats that sorted out then.
Very clear, Chris! Thanks.
There are all kinds of reports out there, but generally, tooth decay is higher in areas that do not have fluoride in the water (either naturally or added).
The report doesn't give exact numbers but it does say that:
- there were 15% fewer five-year olds with tooth decay in fluoridated areas than non-fluoridated areas
- there were 11% fewer 12-year olds with tooth decay
- there were 45% fewer hospital admissions of children aged one to four for tooth decay (mostly for extraction of decayed teeth under a general anaesthetic) in fluoridated areas than non-fluoridated areas
You can read the report here gov.uk/government/uploads/s...
I read many gov reports many of them worthless, some of them are quite amusing and others are im not really sure what to make of them but ive learned over the years that rarely if ever do they contain much in the way of fact.
This is sodium fluoride we are talking about, yes?...A toxic waste? totally unethical form of 'medicating' people, even though there are no health benefits. Sodium Fluoride damages the pineal gland and dumb's down a child's intelligence.
You can't give people this crap, wake up for god's sake...how can you give everyone the same dose of something, aren't we all different?...wrong on so many levels, It's like the twilight zone.
Sorry that you have been affected by some of the scare stories.
The point here is that fluoride in water can have two sources - it can be naturally in water, or it can be introduced - Sodium fluoride is one of three methods that can be used to introduce fluoride. It is not "toxic waste", just a chemical that is introduced in minute quantities. (Thousands of times less than a dose that would be dangerous).
There is no evidence that the artificial fluoridation of water has dumbed anyone down. However, there is a huge amount of evidence for health benefits.
Tooth decay is not just about pretty teeth - tooth decay can lead to a lot of other health problems. So keeping teeth healthy is really important.
There are a lot of things that we use for health that in large quantities would be very dangerous and that includes a lot of naturally occurring substances. But in very small quantities, they can be beneficial.
Fluoride salts have caused harm - in India, many people have been affected by groundwater contaminated with fluoride naturally from granite (not because of anything man has done). This is a huge problem over an entire region and the only way round it is to find alternative water sources - very difficult.
But when we add fluoride to water mechanically, we are able to control its use so that it is at levels far below that which would cause fluoride poisoning.
So, no, it is absolutely nothing like the twilight zone.
I was simply raising an issue that I believe is of serious concern but based on your two statements
"There is no evidence that the artificial fluoridation of water has dumbed anyone down."
and
"However, there is a huge amount of evidence for health benefits."
this not the place to talk seriously about this issue and I simply cannot accept that you truly believe the two things you have stated are true. So all the best.
My post was in reply to no1gotTime4dat, but I am confused that you have decided that because of my post this is not the place to talk seriously about the issue. I can only assume that you expected me to be horrified by the use of Fluorides in drinking water, but I am not. I support their use.
Interesting that this time round the fluoridating agent is industrial waste, it used to be rat poison. Not that sodium fluoride is used so much these days as it's the expensive option. Maybe that accounts for the change of emphasis. Anyway, forget what is added think of what is actually in the water - fluoride ion. Vital for healthy teeth - in moderation - which is about the amount that's added.
shocked to have 'Googled' that Fluoridated drinking water can cause hormone imbalance.
Oh no, not again!
My objection is to the principle of adding ANYTHING to the water supply other than what is needed to make it clean and safe to drink. Fluoride is a hormone disruptor and as a hypothyroid, the fluoride added to the water I drank was instrumental in making it worse. I was already being treated for it before Severn Trent began to add it.
I object because there are other ways to treat dental caries in children. Many of them are being done already - fluoride toothpaste and others are being neglected - sweets in shops, sugar in manufactured food.
The York Review excluded some of the most relevant aspects of fluoridation on the general health e.g. hormone disruption and only considered the aspects of overdosing on teeth. This they claimed could be removed cosmetically. At a price that is prohibitive to most families. Another review many years ago (sorry I can't remember but it was very official) was going to make a more comprehensive review but was prevented from doing so whereupon roughly a third of the members of the body examining the subject resigned including the chairman of the group. One of the members of the group was Professor Barry Peatfield, an endocrinologist whose reputation was rubbished as a result of his opposition.
When T Blair's bill went through the House of Lords, one of the debaters pointed out that adding Viagra to the water would suit some people but nobody else, and the proportion of adults benefiting was limited. The British Dental Association's website showed pictures of puppies and kittens and then to change the record, lovely pictures of baby chickens and ducklings. The message was to protect children from tooth decay by adulterating the water supply. The ethics of adding a substance that definitely disadvantages some members of the population to cover the lack of dental maintenance are not at all clear.
One of the more depressing aspects of so called Scientific evidence is that funding is only given for projects that conform with a forecasteable conclusion. In order to qualify, whole tranches of relevant effects are excluded as they may produce a less than positive report. When we had government funding, scientists could design their own projects with really useful outcomes even if they were negative. Some companies will fund research that has already been carried out by their employees and offer reputable academics large sums to sign them off. If this cash is going to fund better research elsewhere, it is hard to be judgemental except of the company that is trying to pull a fast one in the global market while corrupting reputable scientists here.
I’m not entirely clear what you are trying to say here. I’ll attempt to break it down into chunks. I have experience as a Research Council and charity funded laboratory researcher.
“One of the more depressing aspects of so called Scientific evidence is that funding is only given for projects that conform with a forecasteable conclusion”.
Yes, most funders expect applicants to have an idea of what the likely outcomes might be! However, this is less of a problem than you might think, since often the results are quite unexpected anyway. Nature is more complex than we can guess. As long as the unexpected results are interesting, important and valid, funders don’t mind.
For very ‘blue skies’ biological science investigations, well funded laboratories can sometimes carry these out without initial funding. This is made easier by the fact that researchers are odd people who will work long hours without pay, out of curiosity……..
“In order to qualify, whole tranches of relevant effects are excluded as they may produce a less than positive report”.
Not sure what this means. The expected category of outcomes in a grant application can certainly include negative outcomes – that X does not cause Y, for instance.
“When we had government funding, scientists could design their own projects with really useful outcomes even if they were negative”.
There still is Government funding through the Research Councils, and directly through Government Departments. Policies towards grants applications haven’t really changed (just harder to get!). Can you give me an example of what you mean?
“Some companies will fund research that has already been carried out by their employees and offer reputable academics large sums to sign them off. If this cash is going to fund better research elsewhere, it is hard to be judgemental except of the company that is trying to pull a fast one in the global market while corrupting reputable scientists here”.
If you mean that the academics are innocent here, I think I would disagree. I would wish to fire any academic who worked for me and engaged in this practice.
Ginger? Don't get me started...A Warning about Statistics - and a bit of fun
20 years of Epidemiological results and still the Politicians and Medics don`t want you to know the diseases killing 50,000 UK folk
Promoting health through natural means How can I access the evidence my NHS CCG uses to make their funding policy decisions?
