Friday, December 14, 2012

The tipple in my water, cheers to fluoride

It amuses no end, nay disturbs me really, how people know better than scientists who base their opinions on evidence. Evidence can come in different forms, but if you talking matters medical, medical scientists have probably conducted peer reviewed, double blind trials. Scientists are conservative folk. They are loathe to open their mouths unless they are sure and if they are not, they will qualify with lots of wishy washy words.

Where something like 97 per cent of climate scientists agree that humans have and are causing global warming, why is there still doubt? The dissenting scientists don't have good statistics to back up their anti climate change views. They, quite cleverly, manipulate data to suit their purposes.

The World Health Organisation is a well respected and conservative organisation. So when they say fluoride added to water is good, as long as it is not too much, then I believe. You can read their opinion and details here. Without any doubt it is beneficial to the health of children's teeth. Have a look at the stats for Ballarat child tooth decay, one of the last of Victoria's large cities to receive fluoride in its water.

Here is what the Australian government has to say about tooth decay in children and the benefits of fluoride, based on studies and scientific findings.

Personally, I wouldn't have a clue. I can only base my opinion on what scientists say. Scientists don't always get it right, but I would rather trust their opinion than that of an uninformed amateur.

In an absolutely disgraceful move, Queensland Premier Newman has dropped compulsory fluoridation of the water supply, leaving it to local councils with very vested interests. As always in life, it will be the poor kids who suffer the most, as they won't have access to good dental treatment and their less than great parents won't be proactive.

I may not be here in twenty years, but if you are, do have a look around the local Queensland dole offices at the jobless with no or very bad teeth and thank Premier Newman.

48 comments:

  1. Agree whole heartedly. In fact, before my home town had access to fluoridated water, we used to take fluoride tablets!

    And being married to a meteorologist who regularly bursts a blood vessel when he reads Andrew Bolt's 'interpretation' (I'm being far too kind) of scientific data, I assure you that climate change is proven, despite non-scientists like AB wishing it otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kath, we did as kids, along with iodine. It is very unfortunate that The Bolt's writings are taken as gospel.

      Delete
  2. Excusez-moi Andew, tout cela sur l'eau et floride est très intéressant, mais où est M. Hulot?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grace, Monsieur Hulot est en vacances cette semaine.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous5:47 am

    I have two degrees in the physical sciences, and I'm sorry, but your comparison of global warming and water fluoridation is totally misguided. If you can't understand the science, I suggest you try to consider historical, political, and economic factors, and seek out alternative and credible opinions, instead of blindly trusting "the scientists". I have never disagreed with the idea of global warming, and for several years have considered it the greatest challenge that humanity has ever faced. I'm not a climate scientist, and didn't learn much about global warming at university, but understand enough about the fundamental mechanisms involved to see that it makes sense and is in accord with the data and my own observations, so blind trust is not necessary.

    Consider the fact that global warming was known about in the 1960s, if not earlier. I first heard about it as a child in 1983, but it received barely any attention in the mass media until the late 1980s. The point is that knowledge can take a long time to reach the public, even if it is extremely important. Even then, vested interests can fight back, and confuse the issue in the public mind. Clearly, powerful industries such as mining see a threat to their power from reduced consumption, and renewable energy sources.

    With respect to global warming, there is almost complete unanimity among scientists, but huge disagreement in the media. With water fluoridation, it's the opposite. There is currently almost complete agreement in the media (the Australian media, that is) that fluoridation is good, and big disagreement among scientists (using the term loosely), particularly if you take the international situation into account. For example, continental Europe and Japan have plenty of medical and environmental researchers, and they don't fluoridate their water. There are also several qualified people in Australia, America, and so on, who oppose fluoridation. You obviously haven't made any attempt to locate them on the Internet, or elsewhere. You mention the World Health Organisation, but it is well known that the US has a lot of influence over the United Nations, because it provides a large proportion of its funding, and the US authorities are pro-fluoridation. Some countries, such as India and China, have never even considered artificial fluoridation, because it is well known in those countries that naturally occurring fluoride in groundwater in some areas causes serious health problems, such as skeletal fluorosis. I am a victim of skeletal fluorosis, which although relatively mild is still debilitating, which is why I care about this issue. I'm using speech recognition software to write this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous5:48 am

    cont.
    Corporate interests drive the opposition to global warming, but the support of fluoridation. The reason for the latter is very simple. Fluoridation has never really been about health, but about toxic waste dumping. In the 1940s, Alcoa (The Aluminium Company of America) had the brilliant idea of dumping the toxic industrial fluoride waste from its aluminium refineries into public water supplies, thus avoiding the cost of proper disposal, and having dentists convince people that it was good for their teeth. That might be hard for you to believe, but it's true. Consider that at the time, cigarette smoking, asbestos, DDT, and lead in petrol and paint were all officially "safe". Experiments were also conducted in which people were exposed to nuclear radiation. It was the start of the era of corporate American global dominance, and they got away with a lot of really crazy stuff. Fluoridation is a relic of that era, and definitely not safe.

    At least you're honest enough to admit you don't have a clue, but in that case you shouldn't be calling people disgraceful. Well, that's enough of a lecture. I'll give you a couple of places where you can find good information, and you can ask me some questions if you like. One more thing – most dentists aren't really scientists, and they definitely aren't toxicologists.

    www.fluoridealert.org

    www.fluorideresearch.org

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, the point is I don't know, and so I must rely on scientists who have studied the matter in depth over decades. I can easily find climate change denier websites, and I am sure if I look and they will sound very authoritative. One of the first things I read about fluoride in the WHO report, was that an excess of fluoride can cause skeletal fluorosis. Tobacco companies never suggested an excess of cigarettes will be harmful.

      I too knew of global warming by the early eighties. If I knew, it must have widely known.

      Newman is shaping up to be quite a disgraceful Premier, but like I am sure I would find in anti fluoride websites, you have misquoted me. I called Newman's decision disgraceful, not him.

      Regardless, thanks for your contribution.

      Delete
  5. Colin8:14 am

    Andrew
    To the best of my knowledge, flouride is in the water supply here in Brisbane. You are not suggesting that "Can-do" is taking it out are you?
    As for "bad teeth", blackened teeth or no teeth in the dole lines, well I can assure you that these are all there now. Most of these people, the young aimless ones, who would not work in an iron lung, have never seen a toothbrush. As for toothpaste, forget it! The "dole" money goes on drugs, piercing or tatooes! I can't imagine MacDonalds, check out counters at supermarkets having these "weirdoes" doing any serving, can you???
    However, they could get labour jobs, street cleaning, in the mining sector, labour gangs on the upkeep of rail lines or out on properties, I don't think the livestock would be too upset.
    There are plenty of jobs out there for these "people".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Colin is correct, and there is no reason to assume that all of Qld does not have the benefit of the same flouride as the rest of Australia, then the Premier would have to actively take the flouride AWAY. Not even a cuckoo right wing politician, beholden to conspiracy theories and religious fanaticism, would do that. Would he?

      Is he stacking away tins of pineapple for when the earth ends next week?

      Delete
    2. Colin, I believe Brisbane's water is fluoridated and Queensland was well on the way to having its water supply completely fluoridated, a Bligh initiative. Newman has changed it so that it is the responsibility of local councils, which are very easily influenced.

      Hels, the Premier won't, but at least one local council is going to do so, and a large area of population, Bundaberg, is now not proceeding.

      I think everyone should get horribly drunk on the night before the world ends. There is little point doing anything else.

      Delete
  6. What to write about Queensland? Well.....they are just different there!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blogmates excepted of course Victor, but yes, the US has the deep south and we have the far north.

      Delete
  7. Geez! Since when did posts need to meet grueling academic criteria?

    Well, the only empirical evidence I have is in the form of my son who always had fluoride and has never had a cavity. Me, I never had fluoride when young and have had way too many cavities. That alone makes me a believer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rubye, as you know, I just churn it out, I don't do research. I am the same as you. I've had a couple of teeth removed and fillings. No young person I know has.

      Delete
  8. Colin4:00 pm

    Ah Victor of Sydney! How rude!
    One thing correct QLD is different.
    After all we produced some of the most peculiar politicians in the whole of Australia.
    1. The loveable Vince Gair!!! Oh to be the drunken Ambassador to Ireland, courtesy of the Great man,
    Gough Whitlam.
    2. The more loveable Joh and Flo Bjelke-Petersen's.
    3. Brown bag, Russ Hinze - no brothels in Brisbane and God only knows what else!!!!
    Oh yes having the highway from Brisbane with a road off to his hotel on the way to the Gold Coast????
    I could go a bit further on this, but I shall refrain. You might be surprised what can fall off the back of trucks!
    4. And so the list goes on.
    Since these "robbers" and "off the planet bandits", the curse continues - ALP and now LCP, see what is now going on in Can-do's mob here at present. - Uproar and chaos. Yep, I think Mrs. Can-do might have to kiss, as she does at the prospect of a camera more often.
    5. So we have had votes on Daylight saving, God forbid, according to Jo and Flo, the cows wouldn't give milk, the chooks wouldn't lay eggs, and then horror of horrors, curtains will fade. And so the dear Qld brethren were convinced, thanks to Flo. I suspect that her pumpkins might all die, and what would we do without the famous Flo "pumpkin scones".
    6. Next the Republic referendum - now the things said up here at the time. We would become Stalinists. Joe would come back with his henchmen etc. - and the "Qld people believed this crap". End of Malcolm Turnbull as an aspiring PM. Abbott will see to that as sure as the sun, which still shines over Australia - daylight saving or no daylight saving and the Republic debate.
    6. If someone can tell me that if you have daylight saving you get an extra hour of sunshine, I will SHUT UP!

    Anyhow Victor and readers, Qld is a very nice state, plenty to see, do and enjoy -lovely resorts, some of the best in the World.
    So for that we should be thankful.
    Anyhow I grew up in country NSW, and I think some of the readers of this blog of Andrew's came from other areas?
    End of my written discourse.
    Cheers
    Colin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Colin

      Not only no brothels.

      Years ago I went to an international conference on Child Maltreatment in Brisbane that drew on the best medical, psychological and police thinkers in the world. It was opened by the Qld minister for health who welcomed everyone warmly then said "it is a terrible problem, but thank goodness.... we have no cases of child maltreatment in Queensland".

      Delete
    2. Yep, Hels, a typical politican, they live on another planet, except when it comes to their (1) entitlements and (2)pensions.
      Then they are experts, courtesy of course with their overpaid advisors. Also paid by the public purse. Politicans these days remind me of the old circus days, wind up the clowns and they perform.

      Delete
    3. Colin, one of the nicest things about Queenslanders is that they just do not care what southerners think.

      Hels, I feel like asking if you made a joke, but I know you didn't.

      Delete
  9. I don't have a clue about fluoride either. As far as tooth decay goes, I imagine the teaching of good diet and dental hygiene during childhood is more effective than fluoride in the water. Growing up in Port Pirie, 50s and 60s, I have no idea if there was fluoride in the water supply or not, yet when toothpaste with fluoride became available everyone bought it, convinced that the fluoride was doing some good. I maintain the regular brushing was doing just as much good. Dental hygiene was not taught to us as kids, regular tooth brushing just didn't happen. I've inherited my mother's bad teeth, with little or no enamel on them, so they are in very poor condition now. But my grand daughter also has little or no enamel and with regular dental hygiene practices, plus an excellent diet, she now has excellent teeth, with no fillings. She is 18. Whether or not fluoride in the water has played any part in this I can't say.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "us as kids" means my own family, not the general population, I can't speak for them since I don't know what they were taught at home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. River, you would not have had fluoride when you grew up. You can thank fluoride in the water for the health of your grand daughter's teeth.

      Delete
  11. Anonymous9:32 pm

    Andrew, you wrote "the point is I don't know, and so I must rely on scientists who have studied the matter in depth over decades". You might think that's what you're doing, but you aren't. What you are really doing is relying on the Australian media, a few people in a few organisations, and your own incorrect assumptions. You wrote "medical scientists have probably conducted peer reviewed, double blind trials". Well no, actually, such trials have never been conducted on any fluoride chemical on a long-term basis, let alone hexafluorosilicic acid. There was one trial which showed that 1% of people reacted badly to 1 mg of fluoride in drinking water. That tells you something about acute toxicity, but nothing about chronic toxicity, which is vitally important because fluoride accumulates in the body over a person's lifetime. The studies which purport to demonstrate the safety of fluoridation are junk science. I don't need websites to tell me that, because I can read and understand the journal articles and work it out for myself, not to mention my own personal experience of skeletal fluorosis. If you don't want to read the original research, have a look at this 2002 commentary on the York Review, which was a systematic review of public water fluoridation commissioned by the UK government, and carried out at York University. "The review was critical of the body of evidence that was identified. The authors were surprised by the small amount of work identified. In particular, there were very few studies that followed the same individuals longitudinally, there was lack of analysis of confounding variables and there was failure to undertake appropriate statistical analysis." That was the overall verdict, but they were even more critical of studies regarding safety concerns than they were of those relating to caries incidence. There was no mention of any double-blind trials.
    http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v192/n9/full/4801410a.html

    I can assure you that the websites I listed in my previous post have nothing in common with climate change denial websites. The www.fluorideresearch.org site is that of The Fluoride Journal, which publishes scientific studies, and abstracts of studies which first appeared in other journals, from all over the world. Many of the authors of these studies couldn't care less about artificial water fluoridation, because it has never been on the agenda in their countries. They are concerned with sources of fluoride such as contaminated groundwater, coal burning, and tea. Some of their research is relevant to artificial fluoridation, however, because the concentrations of fluoride in water being studied are similar to, and in some cases lower than, those of artificially fluoridated water. This research very strongly suggests that fluoridation is not safe, even without considering other sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste, other dental treatments and products, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, tea, Teflon, seafood, cigarette smoke, and other air pollution. Fluoride also accumulates in the environment. Fluoride exposure is out of control in Australia. The www.fluoridealert.org website is also science based, with referenced information. It has an anti-fluoridation petition which has been signed by more than 4000 professionals. Many senior and well qualified people oppose fluoridation, which you'll see for yourself if you bother to look. The US Environmental Protection Agency Union of Scientists opposes fluoridation. Http://ccpurewater.org/index.html is another good website.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous9:33 pm

    If you don't trust any websites, you could always go to a good library, like I did. I found some material on the shelves of the Brownless Biomedical Library at The University of Melbourne Parkville campus, where I have done some study. You can access full text hardcopies of articles which you would have to pay for online. You don't have to be a student – just walk in and act like you belong there. At least half a dozen books have also been written about fluoride and fluoridation.

    I actually don't care how much you criticise Campbell Newman. I have never been a Liberal voter, and am not a Queenslander. I have been very critical of the Liberal Party over the years, and still am. My grandfather was an active member of the ALP until the day he died. He also had a science degree, and was unhappy about fluoridation, though unfortunately I didn't find that out until after he had died, and after my fluorosis developed. My objection was meant to be purely directed at your criticism of his policy, though ironically I think it's disgraceful he hasn't just banned fluoridation. There are some opponents of fluoridation with objectionable political views, and a few who are just loopy, but so what? You shouldn't let that cloud your judgement.

    The Irish environmental scientist Declan Waugh recently wrote a lengthy, independent technical report titled Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation, which is available online. He initially was just curious to find out the implications of fluoridation in Ireland for his children, but was amazed by what he discovered. The report is a damning critique of every aspect of fluoridation. You might think that you are concerned about the environment, but the reality is that fluoridation is an act of environmental vandalism. Now that you have publicly advocated fluoridation, and I have pointed you in the right direction, it is not acceptable to bury your head in the sand and pretend to be on the side of "the scientists". It is also not acceptable for people to have a poison, or any medicine for that matter, forced on them against their will. I don't dispute your right to free speech, but as I see it, advocacy of water fluoridation is tantamount to an act of violence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Listen here Anonymous 9:33 PM
      If you haven't got the balls to show your identity, then as far as I am concerned, just SHUT UP.
      Then again you may be of the female gender????
      I will leave it at that for the sake of peace.
      Thank your lucky stars you don't live north of the River Tweed.
      We cook and throw out people like you, we are not cannibals yet.
      Show your name.
      Pity the time on this blog showed that you are below the River Tweed.
      Sorry Andrew, but this person could be Mme. QLD FLAUNT! God forbid.

      Delete
    2. Anon, I was a bit cautious about writing about fluoride, as I already knew your opinion. I have my opinion and we shall agree to disagree without hard feelings hey.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous9:39 pm

    I posted this bit first, but it disappeared.

    Andrew, you wrote "the point is I don't know, and so I must rely on scientists who have studied the matter in depth over decades". You might think that's what you're doing, but you aren't. What you are really doing is relying on the Australian media, a few people in a few organisations, and your own incorrect assumptions. You wrote "medical scientists have probably conducted peer reviewed, double blind trials". Well no, actually, such trials have never been conducted on any fluoride chemical on a long-term basis, let alone hexafluorosilicic acid. There was one trial which showed that 1% of people reacted badly to 1 mg of fluoride in drinking water. That tells you something about acute toxicity, but nothing about chronic toxicity, which is vitally important because fluoride accumulates in the body over a person's lifetime. The studies which purport to demonstrate the safety of fluoridation are junk science. I don't need websites to tell me that, because I can read and understand the journal articles and work it out for myself, not to mention my own personal experience of skeletal fluorosis. If you don't want to read the original research, have a look at this 2002 commentary on the York Review, which was a systematic review of public water fluoridation commissioned by the UK government, and carried out at York University. "The review was critical of the body of evidence that was identified. The authors were surprised by the small amount of work identified. In particular, there were very few studies that followed the same individuals longitudinally, there was lack of analysis of confounding variables and there was failure to undertake appropriate statistical analysis." That was the overall verdict, but they were even more critical of studies regarding safety concerns than they were of those relating to caries incidence. There was no mention of any double-blind trials.
    http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v192/n9/full/4801410a.html

    I can assure you that the websites I listed in my previous post have nothing in common with climate change denial websites. The www.fluorideresearch.org site is that of The Fluoride Journal, which publishes scientific studies, and abstracts of studies which first appeared in other journals, from all over the world. Many of the authors of these studies couldn't care less about artificial water fluoridation, because it has never been on the agenda in their countries. They are concerned with sources of fluoride such as contaminated groundwater, coal burning, and tea. Some of their research is relevant to artificial fluoridation, however, because the concentrations of fluoride in water being studied are similar to, and in some cases lower than, those of artificially fluoridated water. This research very strongly suggests that fluoridation is not safe, even without considering other sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste, other dental treatments and products, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, tea, Teflon, seafood, cigarette smoke, and other air pollution. Fluoride also accumulates in the environment. Fluoride exposure is out of control in Australia. The www.fluoridealert.org website is also science based, with referenced information. It has an anti-fluoridation petition which has been signed by more than 4000 professionals. Many senior and well qualified people oppose fluoridation, which you'll see for yourself if you bother to look. The US Environmental Protection Agency Union of Scientists opposes fluoridation. Http://ccpurewater.org/index.html is another good website.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Colin, some of my best friends are Queenslanders. :-)

    As I'll be spending my fourth Christmas in the last five in Brisbane from next weekend I hope you won't be at the border with a visa cancellation stamp in your pocket.

    Vive la difference!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Victor, I am off duty until the end of February, so you will not see me in my highly polished Jack
      boots. Oh my uniform is brilliant also.
      Such a pity.
      I hope you have a great holiday "north of the Tweed", And before I forget, to all readers of Andrew's blog, have a
      wonderful Christmas and a great New Year - 2013. Pity that we have to vote in Federal elections in 2013.
      Now that is a challenge - what idiot or what party? All the same, just tarred with different tar brushes!

      Delete
  15. Anonymous12:13 am

    Andrew, you obviously just don't get it. You picked a fight with me and everyone else who opposes fluoridation by publicly supporting it, because you are supporting the poisoning of our water against our will. If you had said that you think it's a good idea to brush your teeth with fluoride toothpaste and take fluoride tablets, we could have agreed to disagree, because everyone can make their own choices about those things. Fluoridation of public water supplies is not just a health issue, it's an ethical, legal, and political issue. It should be obvious to any sane person that the medication of any public water supply is not just extremely inefficient and wasteful, but reprehensible. If you want to make peace is your only option is to admit you were wrong.

    Public Health Ethics, 2012, 1-12 (advanced access published August 21, 2012)
    Ethics of Artificial Water Fluoridation in Australia
    Niyi Awofeso, School of Population Health, University of Western Australia, and School of Public Health, University of New South Wales, Australia
    "The author concludes that there is insufficient ethical justification for artificial water fluoridation in Australia."
    "In Australia, the industrial grade fluosilicic acid is the most commonly used chemical for artificial water fluoridation"
    "there is little epidemiological evidence to suggest that widespread adoption of water fluoridation has translated into substantial reduction in caries prevalence in Australia"
    "To date, there is no evidence to support the assertion that water fluoridation reduced social disparities in caries incidence in Australia or internationally"

    Weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth: the legal fiction of water fluoridation
    David Shaw
    University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
    Medical Law International 2012
    This paper provides an analysis of the jurisprudence and legislation concerning the fluoridation of water in the United Kingdom. Water fluoridation is currently permitted by the Water Act 2003, but this appears to contradict legislation and regulations governing food and healthcare in the UK and the EU. It is concluded that the status quo rests on the legal fiction that fluoridated water does not constitute a medication.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous9:42 am

    The World Health Organization is a corporation! Their endorsement has very little to do with science. Always follow the money. That's where the truth lies...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous8:06 pm

    Int J Occup Environ Health. 2003 Jan-Mar;9(1):24-9.
    Fluoridation: a violation of medical ethics and human rights.
    Cross DW, Carton RJ
    Abstract
    Silicofluorides, widely used in water fluoridation, are unlicensed medicinal substances, administered to large populations without informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical practitioner. Fluoridation fails the test of reliability and specificity, and, lacking toxicity testing of silicofluorides, constitutes unlawful medical research. It is banned in most of Europe; European Union human rights legislation makes it illegal. Silicofluorides have never been submitted to the U.S. FDA for approval as medicines. The ethical validity of fluoridation policy does not stand up to scrutiny relative to the Nuremberg Code and other codes of medical ethics, including the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999. The police power of the State has been used in the United States to override health concerns, with the support of the courts, which have given deference to health authorities.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous9:31 pm

    So too much fluoride causes skeletal fluorosis and dental fluorosis right? WHO says so.....so my 6yo who has one kidney who cannot properly excrete fluoride from his kidneys causing him to have a build up which results in him getting dental fluorosis and complaining of sore bones, doubled over in pain due to stomach cramps is okay? Have a think about why we get told to teach our children to spit the toothpaste out, not ingest it, yet it is okay to ingest it in our water. At least give us the choice.....and correct me if I am wrong but is it true that fluoride tablets are now unavailable to purchase? We just spent $1000 on a filter for our house which retains 1/4 of our tap water and the rest goes down the drain (which we pay council for) and the result to our sons health is evidence enough that fluoride was poisoning him.

    My husband and I grew up in fluoride free area and our teeth are fine yet my 6yo son has brown stained teeth.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I had no fluoride growing up, we were on tank water. I have no fillings and am approaching 40. Could be good genetics, who knows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fen, I think you are the exception to the rule. Thankfully something has gone right for you, a healthy set of choppers.

      Delete
  20. oh and I love people that hide behind anonymity. If you feel so strongly about something, reveal yourself and stand up for your beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fen, yes, but I am pleased they responded, with the usual rhetoric.

      Delete
  21. Anonymous3:52 am

    Wow, you really are a piece of work, aren't you Andrew? You think it's acceptable to ridicule the mother of a small child whose health has been badly affected by fluoridated water. You're the guy who eggs on the thug who bashes an innocent victim. Do you realise that fluoride is excreted predominantly in urine (i.e. via the kidneys), and that children are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of fluoride than adults, so it makes sense that a child with one kidney would be affected by fluorosis. It's actually well known that people with impaired kidney function are a group at higher risk. There have been cases in which kidney patients on dialysis were killed when there was an accidental fluoride spill into the water system, similar to the one which happened in Brisbane a few years ago.

    You wrote "Fen, I think you are the exception to the rule.". Don't think, Andrew, it's not your forte. The York Review found only a 14.6% increase in the proportion of children who were caries free, and that was based on studies which were of moderate quality at best. It concluded that even that small benefit was only suggested, not proven. Did you notice that the web address I provided was to Nature, which is one of the world's top science journals? There are countries which previously fluoridated their water supplies, but banned it decades ago, such as Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Dental health in those countries has been improving since the discontinuation of fluoridation.

    You said that the WHO website mentioned skeletal fluorosis, but so what? What about the Harvard university study which showed a more than fivefold increase in osteosarcoma, a fatal bone cancer, associated with fluoridated water? What about the Harvard meta-analysis which links fluoride in water to reduced IQ in children? What about hypothyroidism, obesity, and diabetes? I could go on. You can't put your trust in science if you don't know what science is, and you clearly have no idea, as indicated in your first post. What would you say to a boy with osteosarcoma who looked you in the eye and asked you why you think fluoride should be added to tap water? Would you just dismiss his question as "rhetoric"? In my opinion, you have made yourself an accomplice to murder. If you are too lazy to educate yourself, and too gutless to discuss the issue, you should have shut your face from the start.

    You can find me (Joe Bloggs), and the two other anonymous posters, at the Fluoride Free Australia Facebook page. I don't want to reveal my name so that the focus is on the issue, not me. I only know your first name, if that, so what difference does it make?

    Monitoring time-related trends in dental caries in permanent teeth in Japanese national surveys
    Yumiko Kawashita, Masayasu Kitamura, Toshiyuki Saito
    Article first published online: 15 MAR 2012
    "According to dental examinations of 3- and 12-year-old children conducted throughout Japan, the prevalence of dental caries in children is decreasing."
    "Conclusions:  Among Japanese respondents sampled in a series of cross-sectional studies between 1957 and 2005, the incidence of dental caries in young adults decreased, suggesting a decrease in prevalences of dental caries in future generations."

    http://www.yes4cleanwater.org/Documents/CoutriesRejectedF.pdf

    Nature Vol. 322 10 July 1986
    The mystery of declining tooth decay
    from Mark Diesendorf
    Large temporal reductions in tooth decay, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, have been observed in both unfluoridated and fluoridated areas of at least eight developed countries over the past 30 years. It is now time for a scientific re-examination of the alleged enormous benefits of fluoridation.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous - you are bore.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Victor and Fenstar, I'm not trying to entertain, I'm trying to educate. If you can't understand the difference, you are dunces. Poisoning people is evil. What part of that don't you understand?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Your opinion is not the problem, Joe Bloggs. You are entitled to it and you have given it. It is the fact that you go on and on about it that is boring.

    Has it occurred to you that insulting people (calling us dunces etc) is not the best way to persuade people to your point of view?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Victor, I one received a comment from a religious person that was extremely long and I quickly deleted it as it was quite absurd.

      Thanks for reading the comments and picking up on the dunces. I stopped reading them after the first.

      Delete
  25. I have had an entertaining morning reading your comments even though anon reckons he's/she's not entertaining but educating. I reckon he/she is bitter (which is understandable) about having skeletal fluorosis or whatever and wants to blame somebody or something. The proof that it is caused by fluoridation of water is not as convincing as the proof that it is good for healthy teeth. This statement is entirely based on my personal observations of my children's teeth and my discussions with my dentist. So I will probably fall in line with the dunces of anon. It all depends on which angle you are coming from on what you want to believe. I'm sorry I missed this post when you wrote it. I was too busy having fun in QUEENSLAND.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are a glutton for punishment Diane. I don't doubt excessive amounts are bad, and even if there is some risk, the benefits outweigh the risk, in my opinion anyway.

      Delete
  26. Oh Andrew, you have really opened a can of worms here, mate. I like the way the loudest complainants are ANONYMOUS. Writing from under the rocks they live in.
    Cheers,
    Bill

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Par for the course Bill. Joe Bloggs only used a name because for other reasons, I turned Anon comments off.

      Delete
  27. Andrew, I had already told you that I was using the name Joe Bloggs and could be found at the Fluoride Free Australia Facebook page, so your comments are idiotic, as usual. I'm using speech recognition software, which can be a bit awkward, and using the anonymous option was the most convenient. If you think being visible is so important, why do you only provide your first name, and a photo which has your face covered by the camera? You are a hypocrite, and avoiding the real issue, which is fluoridation. You are the one who brought it up on this blog in the first place, not me. You wrote "even if there is some risk, the benefits outweigh the risk". Who are you to decide whether or not the risk is worth it for other people? You have an authoritarian mentality. If you think fluoride is so great, you can use toothpaste which is higher in fluoride than the regular stuff, take fluoride tablets, have fluoride treatments at the dentist, and use fluoride mouthwash. I don't care if you eat tubes of fluoride toothpaste, go nuts. You can get all the fluoride you could ever want, and more, from other sources, so what possible justification is there for forcing toxic industrial fluoride waste onto people through their water? The risk from fluoridated water is huge, and there is zero benefit. The information about the risks comes from real scientists, including toxicologists, not idiot dentists who just treat patients and do what they're told, or who hold administrative positions. One of the reasons Japan stopped fluoridation is that a large study was done which showed that the incidence of dental caries was increasing, not decreasing. Japan now has a maximum legal limit for fluoride in drinking water of 0.05 ppm. John Colquhoun and Hardy Limeback were previously very prominent supporters of fluoridation in New Zealand and Canada, respectively. Both are dentists and held very senior positions. However, when they actually looked into the subject in detail, and the evidence mounted that fluoridation is neither safe or effective, they were fortunately honest enough to admit they had been wrong. That is not easy for people with a professional reputation to protect. It should be much easier for you.

    wilbo43 is your real name, is it? Moron.

    diane b, you wrote "It all depends on which angle you are coming from on what you want to believe.". No, not really. In hindsight, it took me a ridiculously long time to realise that fluoride was causing me major health problems. I wasn't particularly keen to believe it, but eventually it became obvious. Quite a few health conditions which have been linked to fluoride are on the rise in Australia and other countries with high levels of fluoridation, and the health authorities have no answers. It's unlikely to just be a coincidence. With respect to supposed dental benefits, very small scale, anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it. The best evidence is that water fluoridation does not provide any dental benefit. On the other hand, it is well known and uncontroversial that it causes very high rates of dental fluorosis, which is a pathological change in dental enamel caused by fluoride. Enamel and bone are similar, and both very high in calcium, which is why they attract fluoride. Toxicologists have observed that dental fluorosis provides "a window into the bones". The studies which supposedly show that fluoridation is good for teeth are relatively small in scale, selective, and far from impartial. The pro-fluoride lobby has plenty of money and influence.

    Victor, you actually insulted me first, so you are another hypocrite. If you understood the seriousness of the issue, you would realise how ridiculous your complaints about being bored really are. My first post was fairly polite, and it's not my fault that Andrew chose to bury his head in the sand. People who are honest don't mind eating a little humble pie occasionally.

    ReplyDelete
  28. As I said, it is my opinion and I am allowed to have one, especially on my own blog. I think you have had a decent chance to have your say now. Future comments are closed.

    ReplyDelete