When is Industry Toxic Waste Good Enough to Drink??

[ThunderIdeal]

up to 40% of the community will develop fluorosis at the flouridation levels planned for qld (york review 2000;)

baby formula made with flouridated water is no longer considered safe (American Dental Assoc 06)

1% of the population displays sensitivity to flouride in various ways eg dermatitis, headaches, nausea and abdominal pain (journal of dental medicine #16)

only 1% of flouridated water is drunk. the rest is used domestically or in industry. flouridation is inefficient and costly (pine rivers shire council 05)

most countries have rejected fluoridation while australia and the US promote it. European countries that have ceased fluoridation have no increase in tooth decay (no reference on that one)

the australian dental association aggressively promotes fluoridation but in 2006 denied any liiability for any harm caused by water fluoridation

water fluoridation is mass medication denying freedom of choice

the fluoridation chemicals used are waste products from aluminium and fertiliser plants and contain arsenic, lead, mercury and hydrogen fluoride residues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i copied all that from a flyer www.fluoridealert.org

i've heard all of the reasons why we don't need to be worried, but even if i take them for gospel, i'm still left with worries.

assuming the above points are all accurate, they are some good points, but this one is especially relevant:

water fluoridation is mass medication denying freedom of choice

isn't this the crowd that's pissy because our right to self-medicate is being denied? i just can't accept forced medication, no matter how low the dose is (the doser can always malfunction, and public servants certainly can)

anyway, here's a cynical though interesting angle. dentists earn money because people have bad teeth. we know that out of a few dentists, at least one is likely to put fillings into holes that never existed. why then, is the australian dental association so concerned with delivering fluoride, which must be eroding the business of it's members (assuming fluoridation works like they say)?

[ThunderIdeal]

this was intended for chill space.

[Jonny Deformed]

OPPOSED TO FORCED WATER FLUORIDATION ?

WE NOW HAVE LESS THAN 2 WEEKS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Some Queensland Politicians say they have received only a few complaints about water fluoridation! We need to act now, don’t let this week go by without doing the following:

§ Write to your local Parliamentarian to complain; see contact details at www.qawf.org

§ e-mail all 89 QLD MPs easily using the web site tool kit ! ( under tools for fighting fluoridation )

§ There are only a few steps you need to do - we have made it even easier with link below

http://www.qawf.org/pages/email.html

( if not live when clicked on , paste into your browser ) this will take you to a page with links with a short preloaded letter, or you can edit or delete this letter and copy and paste in your own letter. You can email all the Queensland MPs in minutes.

Write to the Premier : Office of the Premier, PO Box 15185 City East, Qld 4002

Do it now – we DO have time to make a difference

sent on behalf of Queenslanders Against Water Fluoridation Inc [email protected]

feel free to phone anytime 07 3879 1080 mob 0418 777 112

[Jesus On Peyote]

Im not in queensland, but im sure ittle be comming this way, if it already hasent, theres not enough protests going on these days, i reckon, for anything we as the community oppose, we MUST protest, and seeing as aus is a big place, theres no better spot to do it then in the capital, Canberra..Just need to get organized, mobilized and MARCH! but who knows, i may be living in the 60s in my head.

[ThunderIdeal]

marching either needs to be far more widespread, or, as i suspect, it just doesn't do anything these days. usually it's like 50 people that seem like weirdos as you walk past them. the only massive global protest i can recall was for the war in iraq, and it really was massive. all it did was reinforce the idea that marching does nothing.

more and more i think our task will be to redirect society AFTER collapse, not before.

[nabraxas]

In a statement released early August by the Fluoride Action Network, over 600 doctors, scientists, and other experts have donated their signatures to call for an end to the controversial practice of water fluoridation.

In an extensive examination of the available literature, FAN has compounded a list of suspected symptoms of fluoridation in the human population including an increase in the risk of bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, lowered IQ, arthritic-like conditions, dental fluorosis, and osteosarcoma. The PPM levels of fluoride present in the U.S. water supply are, according to the report, adequate to facilitate many of these symptoms in certain groups including children, diabetics, above-average water drinkers, and those with poor kidney function, among others.

"Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology," argues Dr. Arvid Carlson, the winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine and co-signer on the report, “…it’s really obsolete.”

The statement went on to cite a policy change by the American Dental Association, a pro-fluoridation group, recommending that only non-fluoridated water be used in preparing infant formula. The authors reason that the expense this presents to low-income mothers alone is worth banning the practice over.

Further, it is well known that fluoride works in a topical sense, not a systemic one. What this means is that any benefit against tooth decay by fluoride is derived from direct application to the teeth, not by ingesting the substance into the body where it has potentially toxic biological effects. Even the very efficacy of fluoride in preventing tooth decay is called into question in this report, as large studies have shown little difference in the prevalence of tooth decay between fluoridated and un-fluoridated areas.

The report goes on to recount CDC evidence that dental fluorosis, a condition characterized by a discoloration of tooth enamel caused by fluoride over-exposure, affects one third of American children.

More distressingly, the authors link fluoridation with bone cancer, citing a Harvard study, and add that the industrial-grade fluoride added to the water supply has never been subjected to toxicological testing or FDA review for safety in human ingestion.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has denied the link between fluoride and bone cancer, and does not consider fluoridation to be a public health threat. According to a statement issued on this subject, the “CDC continues to strongly support community water fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure to prevent and control tooth decay and to improve overall health.”

http://www.naturalnews.com/022008.html

Edited March 2, 2008 by nabraxas

[Jesus On Peyote]

Well thunder i get ya and im with ya, we need to expand on em, organize NATIONAL stop work days to "complement" the marches ( thats where we need real 60s people power) that are willing to lose some material wages for any cause.Organize giant woodstock style concerts at the end of the marches right outside parliament house. Stuff like that. The police cant remove 20k people, hell the army would have a hard time.

(thats my sytle of protesting) tho -NO VIOLENCE- that gives them the moral higher moral stance to be pricks and get away with it.

The government HAS to listen when their economy is at stake.Plus the inernational press will be bad.

....Of coarse though thats very much a deam.. people are too attached to the possessions to want to miss those wages and risk arrest and are generally to lazy/ignorant.

Another way we can go is to make a cult, make the society collapse then we can rebuild it in our image

Edited March 3, 2008 by Jesus On Peyote

[Jonny Deformed]

Queenslanders Against Water Fluoridation

Contacting your local MP's can't hurt. Also signing this Petition

OPPOSED TO WATER FLUORIDATION? A TOOL KIT TO HELP

Edited March 3, 2008 by JD.

[ThunderIdeal]

.

Edited March 7, 2008 by ThunderIdeal

[wandjina]

So if Brissie tap water is fluoridated...what kind of filter(s) would you use?

[teonanacatl]

you would need some form of reverse osmosis system, distillation or activated alumina defluoridation filter .

[paradox]

do you need to do reverse osmosis to filter out fluoride? that fuck'n sux! reverse osmosis filters are worth a fortune if i remember correctly. & doesn't reverse osmosis pretty much filter out EVERYTHING but the H2o? i mean, even essential trace elements & minerals etc?

[teonanacatl]

You dont drink water for the essential nutrients, you get them in your food. But yes RO gets rid of everything.

I have been reading about water fluoridation whilst I dont think it should be in our supply, I dont see it being to dangerous granted the other things we subject ourselves to every day. Who is anti fluoride in tap water but has fluoride in their toothpaste?

[ThunderIdeal]

you don't eat toothpaste man, for that very reason.

now i'm wondering about the old argument 'if water isn't flouridated, all you need to do is get your kids to swallow a bit of toothpaste'. i've heard this a few times, but apparently the flouride works topically....? therefore if your kids brush their teeth in the first place, there is no problem, and swallowing toothpaste does nothing except begin to poison you.

Edited March 9, 2008 by ThunderIdeal

[wandjina]

yep, fluoride works topically...so consuming it really isnt necessary.

This is a pretty even-handed paper...covers most of the major points (in a nut shell, not really any rocksolid evidence for or against):

Cheng, KK, (2007) 'Adding fluoride to water supplies' BMJ 2007;335:699-702

Adding fluoride to water supplies to prevent dental caries is controversial. K K Cheng, Iain Chalmers, and Trevor A Sheldon identify the issues it raises in the hope of furthering constructive public consultation and debate

Several countries add fluoride to water supplies to prevent dental caries (boxes 1 and 2). Since the 2003 Water Act, water companies are required to add fluoride to supplies when requested—after public consultation—by a health authority in England or the Welsh Assembly in Wales.1

Summary points

Water fluoridation is highly controversial

Evidence is often misused or misinterpreted and uncertainties glossed over in polarised debates

Problems include identifying benefits and harms, whether fluoride is a medicine, and the ethical implications

This article provides professionals and the public with a framework for constructive public consultations

Box 1 Dental caries

What is dental caries?

Dental caries is a process of demineralisation of dental hard tissue caused by acids formed from bacterial fermentation of sugars in the diet. Demineralisation is countered by the deposit of minerals in the saliva—remineralisation. Remineralisation is a slow process, however, which has to compete with factors that cause demineralisation. If remineralisation can effectively compete the enamel is repaired. If demineralisation exceeds remineralisation a carious cavity finally forms. Fluoride prevents caries by enhancing remineralisation.

How common is caries?

The figureGo shows the average numbers of decayed, missing, and filled teeth in 12 year old children for several European countries. In most countries this number is around 1.5 and 50% of children have no caries. Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition.

Figure 1

View larger version (51K):

[in this window]

[in a new window]

[PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]

Tooth decay in 12 year olds in European Union countries2

Box 2 Exposure to fluoride

How common are water supplies containing fluoride?

About 9-10% of water supplies in England and Wales contain 0.5-1 mg/l fluoride, either naturally or as an additive.2 3 4 Limited fluoridation trials were introduced in England from the mid-1950s, but resistance by water companies curtailed their spread. Currently, 1.5 million people receive water containing fluoride drawn from ground that is relatively high in the mineral. Another five million people in parts of the West Midlands, Yorkshire, and Tyneside receive water with added fluoride (1 mg/l). Fluoride is not added to water supplies in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.

In Western Europe 12 million people receive water with added fluoride, mainly in England, Ireland, and Spain.5 In the United States, just under 60% of the population receive fluoridated water.6 Water fluoridation has also been introduced in Australia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Canada, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, Israel, Malaysia, and New Zealand. Worldwide, about 5.7% of people receive water containing fluoride to around 1 mg/l.5

In some countries such schemes have been withdrawn. These include Germany, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. Systematic information on the rationale behind these decisions is not available. In the Swiss canton of Basel-Stadt, the fluoridation scheme was withdrawn in 2003 after 41 years of operation because other measures were of "comparable effectiveness" to "compulsory medication."7

What are the sources of fluoride exposure?

Before the widespread use of fluoride containing toothpastes, fluoride in water (natural or fluoridated) was the main source of exposure in adults and children.8 Although the relative contribution from toothpaste has increased, in fluoridated areas drinking water remains the main source of exposure. Young children are more likely to ingest fluoridated toothpaste, so its relative importance as a source of exposure is higher in children than in adults.

Plans to add fluoride to water supplies are often contentious. Controversy relates to potential benefits of fluoridation, difficulty of identifying harms, whether fluoride is a medicine, and the ethics of a mass intervention. We are concerned that the polarised debates and the way that evidence is harnessed and uncertainties glossed over make it hard for the public and professionals to participate in consultations on an informed basis. Here, we highlight problems that should be confronted in such consultations and emphasise the considerable uncertainties in the evidence.

Known benefits of adding fluoride to water

In 1999, the Department of Health in England commissioned the centre for reviews and dissemination at the University of York to systematically review the evidence on the effects of water fluoridation on dental health and to look for evidence of harm.9 The review was developed with input from an advisory committee, which included members who supported and opposed fluoridation, or who had no strong views on the matter. Exceptional steps were taken to avoid bias and ensure transparency throughout.

Given the certainty with which water fluoridation has been promoted and opposed, and the large number (around 3200) of research papers identified,9 the reviewers were surprised by the poor quality of the evidence and the uncertainty surrounding the beneficial and adverse effects of fluoridation.

Studies that met the minimal quality threshold indicated that water fluoridation reduced the prevalence of caries but that the size of the effect was uncertain. Estimates of the increase in the proportion of children without caries in fluoridated areas versus non-fluoridated areas varied (median 15%, interquartile range 5% to 22%). These estimates could be biased, however, because potential confounders were poorly adjusted for.9

Water fluoridation aims to reduce social inequalities in dental health,10 but few relevant studies exist. The quality of research was even lower than that assessing overall effects of fluoridation. The results were inconsistent—fluoridation seemed to reduce social inequalities in children aged 5 and 12 when measured by the number of decayed, missing, or filled teeth, but not when the proportion of 5 year olds with no caries was used.

Potential harms of fluoridation

The review estimated the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) and fluorosis of aesthetic concern at around 48% and 12.5% when the fluoride concentration was 1.0 part per million,9 although the quality of the studies was low. The evidence was of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms (such as cancer and bone fracture). The amount and quality of the available data on side effects were insufficient to rule out all but the biggest effects.

Small relative increases in risk are difficult to estimate reliably by epidemiological studies, even though lifetime exposure of the whole population may have large population effects. For example, an ecological study from Taiwan found a high incidence of bladder cancer in women in areas where natural fluoride content in water is high. The authors attributed the finding to chance because multiple comparisons were made.11 Testing the hypothesis that drinking fluoridated water increases the risk of bladder cancer would need to take account of errors in estimating total fluoride exposures; potential lack of variation in exposure; the probable long latency between exposure and outcome; the presence of strong confounders such as smoking and occupational exposures; and changes in diagnostic classification of bladder tumours. Therefore, a modest association between fluoridation and bladder cancer would be difficult to detect, both in communities and in individuals. This is of concern because a modest (for example, 20%) increase in risk of bladder cancer would mean about 2000 extra new cases a year if the entire UK population was exposed.

The methodological challenges of detecting harms of long term exposure to fluoridation are further illustrated by a case-control study on hip fracture in England.12 It reported "no increase" in risk associated with average lifetime exposure of ≥0.9 part per million fluoride in drinking water. Although exemplary in many other aspects, the study had less than 70% power to identify an odds ratio of 1.5 associated with exposure. If the odds ratio was only 1.2—which would mean more than 10 000 excess hip fractures a year in England if the population was so exposed—the study would have a less than one in five chance of detecting it.

Thus, evidence on the potential benefits and harms of adding fluoride to water is relatively poor. This is reflected in the recommendations of the Medical Research Council (MRC)13 and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline14 on preventing and managing dental decay in preschool children (box 3). We know of no subsequent evidence that reduces the uncertainty.

Box 3 Key recommendations for future research on water fluoridation

* "Studies are needed to provide estimates of the effects of water fluoridation on children aged 3-15 years against a background of widespread use of fluoride toothpaste, and to extend knowledge about the effect of water fluoridation by . . . (socio-economic status), taking into account potentially important effect modifiers such as sugar consumption and toothpaste usage"13

* "A robust evaluation of the benefits of water fluoridation, as well as the potential risks of fluorosis . . . should be a health priority"14

There is no such thing as absolute certainty on safety. While the quality of evidence on potential long term harms of fluoridated water may be no worse than that for some common clinical interventions, patients can weigh potential benefits and risks before agreeing to treatments. In the case of fluoridation, people should be aware of the limitations of evidence about its potential harms and that it would be almost impossible to detect small but important risks (especially for chronic conditions) after introducing fluoridation.

Alternative ways to prevent caries

The evidence from systematic reviews of randomised trials is strong for alternative ways of preventing caries—mainly toothpastes containing fluorides. Analysis of 70 randomised trials of 42 300 children yielded a pooled preventive fraction for decayed, missing, or filled teeth of 24% (21% to 28%).15 However, the use of toothpastes depends on individual behaviour, which has implications for reducing inequality.

Is fluoride added to water supplies a medicine?

Fluoride is not in any natural human metabolic pathway. Because it mainly reduces caries by remineralisation of demineralised enamel (box 4), some people regard water fluoridation as a form of mass medication. Other people point out that fluoride occurs naturally at concentrations comparable to those used in fluoridation programmes and is therefore not a medicine. If viewed as a medicine, water fluoridation would require approval from a relevant authority.

Box 4 Effect of fluoride on the association between sugar and caries

Fluoride is the main factor that alters the resistance of teeth to acid attack and interacts with sugars in plaque. Fluoride affects tooth structure during and after development. It reduces caries in three ways:

* It reduces and inhibits dissolution of enamel

* It promotes remineralisation; remineralisation in the presence of fluoride not only replaces lost mineral but also increases resistance to acids and to subsequent demineralisation

* It affects plaque by altering the ecology of the dental plaque and reducing acid production

Fluoride is most effective when used topically, after the teeth have erupted

The legal definition of a medicinal product in the European Union (Codified Pharmaceutical Directive 2004/27/EC, Article 1.2) is any substance or combination of substances "presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings" or "which may be used in or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action." Furthermore, in 1983 a judge ruled that fluoridated water fell within the Medicines Act 1968, "Section 130 defines ‘medicinal product' and I am satisfied that fluoride in whatever form it is ultimately purchased by the respondents falls within that definition."16

If fluoride is a medicine, evidence on its effects should be subject to the standards of proof expected of drugs, including evidence from randomised trials. If used as a mass preventive measure in well people, the evidence of net benefit should be greater than that needed for drugs to treat illness.17 An important distinction also exists between removing unnatural exposures (such as environmental tobacco smoke) and adding unnatural exposures (such as drugs or preservatives).18 In the second situation, evidence on benefit and safety must be more stringent. There have been no randomised trials of water fluoridation.

Ethical implications

Under the principle of informed consent, anyone can refuse treatment with a drug or other intervention. The Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine 199719 (which the UK has not signed) states that health interventions can only be carried out after free and informed consent. The General Medical Council's guidance on consent also stresses patients' autonomy, and their right to decide whether or not to undergo medical intervention even if refusal may result in harm.20 This is especially important for water fluoridation, as an uncontrollable dose of fluoride would be given for up to a lifetime, regardless of the risk of caries, and many people would not benefit.

The convention makes provision for exceptions to the principle of informed consent if necessary for public safety, to prevent crime, or to protect public health (article 26).19 Potential benefit must therefore be balanced against uncertainty about harms, the lower overall prevalence of caries now than a few decades ago (and smaller possible absolute benefit), the availability of other effective methods of prevention, and people's autonomy. Research on areas suggested by the MRC is needed.13 Methodological challenges due to problems of measuring fluoride exposure, long latency in chronic disease, and modest effect sizes will need special attention.

Trust in the dissemination of evidence

Public and professional bodies need to balance benefits and risks, individual rights, and social values in an even handed manner. Those opposing fluoridation often claim that it does not reduce caries and they also overstate the evidence on harm.21 On the other hand, the Department of Health's objectivity is questionable—it funded the British Fluoridation Society and, along with many other supporters of fluoridation, it used the York review's findings9 selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation.22 In response to MRC recommendations,13 the department commissioned research on the bioavailability of fluoride from naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water. The study had only 20 participants and was too small to give reliable results. Despite this and the caveats in the report's conclusion,23 this report formed the basis of a series of claims by government for the safety of fluoridation.24

Against this backdrop of one sided handling of the evidence, the public distrust in the information it receives is understandable. We hope this article helps provide professionals and the public with a framework for engaging constructively in public consultations.

We thank Edward Baldwin, June Jones, Aubrey Sheiham, and David Sloan for their comments on the manuscript.

Contributors and sources: All authors contributed to the original idea of the paper and its writing. TAS chaired the CRD fluoridation review advisory panel. IC was a member of the same panel. KKC lives in Birmingham where the water is fluoridated. The sections on potential benefits and harms of water fluoridation are largely based on a systematic review and recent materials identified through Medline searches. The rest of the paper reflects the authors' opinion. KKC is guarantor.

Competing interests: Please see the Contributors and sources section.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

References

1. Drinking Water Inspectorate. Fluoridation of drinking water. 2006. www.dwi.gov.uk/consumer/concerns/fluoride.shtm

2. WHO. WHO oral health country/area profile programme.www.whocollab.od.mah.se/expl/regions.html

3. Whelton HP, Ketley CE, McSweeney F, O'Mullane DM. A review of fluorosis in the European Union: prevalence, risk factors and aesthetic issues. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2004;32(suppl 1):9-18.[CrossRef][iSI][Medline]

4. Jowell T. House of Commons official report (Hansard). 1998 May 6: col 697. http://tinyurl.com/3xvxwc.

5. National Public Health Service for Wales. Briefing paper on fluoridation and the implications of the Water Act 2003. 2004. http://tinyurl.com/2onuvw.

6. Centre for Disease Control. Fluoridation statistics 2002: status of water fluoridation in the United States. 2002. www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/us_stats2002.htm

7. Gesundheits-und Sozialkommission des Kantons Basel-Stadt. Bericht der Gesundheits-und Sozialkommission des Grossen Rates zum Anzug René Brigger betreffend Fluoridierung des Basler Trinkwassers. P975485. 2003. www.bruha.com/pfpc/ber-9229_Basel_document.pdf

8. Murray JJ, Rugg-Gunn AJ, Jenkins GN. Fluorides in caries prevention. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wright, 1991.

9. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. A systematic review of public water fluoridation. York: NHS CRD, 2000.

10. Locker D. Deprivation and oral health: a review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2000;28:161-9.[CrossRef][iSI][Medline]

11. Yang CY, Cheng MF, Tsai SS, Hung CF. Fluoride in drinking water and cancer mortality in Taiwan. Environ Res 2000;82:189-93.[Medline]

12. Hillier S, Cooper C, Kellingray S, Russell G, Hughes H, Coggon D. Fluoride in drinking water and risk of hip fracture in the UK: a case-control study. Lancet 2000;355:265-9.[CrossRef][iSI][Medline]

13. Medical Research Council. Working group report: water fluoridation and health. London: MRC, 2002.

14. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Prevention and management of dental decay in the pre-school child: a national clinical guideline. SIGN, 2005. www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=8395http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign83.pdf.

15. Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S. Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(1):CD002278.

16. Lord Jauncey. Opinion of Lord Jauncey in causa Mrs Catherine McColl (A.P) against Strathclyde Regional Council. The Court of Session, Edinburgh, 1983.

17. Cochrane AL, Holland WW. Validation of screening procedures. Br Med Bull 1971;27:3-8.[Free Full Text]

18. Rose G. The strategy of preventive medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

19. Council of Europe. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: convention on human rights and biomedicine. Council of Europe, 1997. http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/164.htm

20. General Medical Council. Seeking patients' consent: the ethical considerations. London: GMC, 1998.

21. Connett P. Fifty reasons to oppose fluoridation. Fluoride Action Network, 2004. www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

22. Wilson PM, Sheldon TA. Muddy waters: evidence-based policy making, uncertainty and the "York review" on water fluoridation. Evidence Policy 2006;2:321-31.

23. Maguire A, Moynihan PJ, Zohouri V. Bioavailability of fluoride in drinking-water—a human experimental study. Report for the UK Department of Health, June 2004. Newcastle upon Tyne: School of Dental Sciences, University of Newcastle, 2004.

24. Lord Warner. House of Lords Official Report (Hansard). 2004 June 29: col WA6. http://tinyurl.com/37hgel

(Accepted 15 July 2007)

Edited March 9, 2008 by wandjina

[teonanacatl]

lol I know people who swallow TP.

Interestingly I havent got any fillings and grew up without fluoride in my water, I also brush my teeth probably only 6 times a week, so its more about your diet.

[The Dude]

I thought flouride is added in place of chlorine to de-bacterialise the water, I think there HAS to be somehting in there or teh water will go rank anyway.

[ThunderIdeal]

it's added as forced medication, not in place of chlorine.

totally agree teotanacatl, although it's not opinion it's fact. refined sugar is basically the cause of tooth decay, otherwise hunter-gatherers who have never even imagined a toothbrush would all be prowling around with no teeth.

[reshroomED]

Another issue is actual dosing.

I was employed by the Victorian water board (Melbourne Water) to oversee and maintain the automated addition of flouride, chlorine, etc to the domestic water supply in central and Eastern Melbourne for a period of about 18mths, ten-odd years back. At this stage such dosage was very much a hit-and-miss affair. I had a six-month dispute with the lab at Winneke water-treatment plant re discharging pH 5 - 6 water into the reticulation system, and such stories just go on and on.

In specific relation to flouridation, I was never let near the dosing system at Yan Yean reservior that failed on about a weekly basis. At the time I'd fixed a couple of problems that had the permanent employees stuck for years (not that I'm that good, just that gov employees aren't, generally). This got me sacked soon after, so I don't know if the problem was resolved or not. Since the industry was privatised soon after, I'd doubt that the required money would have been spent. But, for a fact, if you lived around Thomastown fifteen years ago you have been subjected to a very high level of flouridation in your water for a period of years.

This is infrastructure on the outskirts of Melbourne, which I'd expect to see a lot more maintenance than any rural area.

So be aware that the actual flouride level that you'll experience could have no relation at all to recomended/safe levels

ed

[2b]

Fluoride seems to be a hot topic at the moment everywhere I go. In my town this has been dragged through the media in the most alarmist sensational way that it was hard to believe. The amount of junk science complete with facts straight off the internet (so that means they must be true!) that was put forward was astounding. I'm not sure what my personal position is on this topic, but the amount of poorly researched arguments is a real worry.

Let's start with this issue of toxic waste. Fluoride is an important and expensive raw material used in Aluminium smelting operations. The efforts of these operations are concentrated on using fluoride as efficiently as possible and recapturing as much as possible through a fluoride recovery process. There are no liquid wastes to be disposed of from the recovery process and it is simply misleading to suggest that it is put into our water system to save money.

As i said i have no fixed position on this issue, but let’s all take a step back and look at the facts.

NB: "How's it going Ed ? It’s been a long time."

[ThunderIdeal]

ok, as i mentioned long ago there is no reason to believe the actual dosing would be accurate.

now we have it straight from the horses mouth (shroomed) that the dosing can fuck up and nobody really gives a shit when it does.

so just WHAT THE FUCK else is there to discuss? i'm actually outraged.

[WilliamHey]

that is scary bro, this world is going down

[Stonehenge]

Just get a reverse osmosis unit or buy bottled water. That's what we have to do in the states. Welcome to the new world order. The national ID card is next. Our freedom of speech and privacy have already been taken away. There are terrorists out there you know. If ordinary people were allowed any freedoms, the terrorists might misuse them so all must suffer.

Now, take your state ordered meds and have your papers ready when the police come knocking. (or barging in unannounced)

[2b]

Getting a rain water tank makes more sense.

[Jonny Deformed]

 

 

 

http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.6.HEA...ssMullennix.htm

Nuff said.