Closed Thread
Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 160
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    338
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked
    136
    Reviews
    0
    I'm loving reading this post! It's so much fun. Steve, come back...pretty please? I wanna know why my dentist put fluoride treatment on my tooth!

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    16
    Reviews
    0
    Atropos, you wrote "I know where the governments [sic] money comes from!! Why would the government care? Um, because, according to you, they are spending money on fluoride to poison our water which then costs them more money in the health system." Well done, you have blatantly contradicted yourself in the space of three sentences. It doesn't cost them more money, because it isn't their money, it's taxpayers' money. What part of that don't you understand? You are also trying to put words into my mouth again, even though I have already explicitly said that I don't think politicians are deliberately poisoning people. If you can't comprehend how politicians could make a decision and not understand its consequences, it implies that you think they have some kind of supernatural ability, because determining cause-and-effect is generally not trivial, and politicians make decisions on all kinds of things for which they are not qualified, including fluoridation.
     

    Yes, I have known about the Finnish study published in 1997 which you refer to for years, though I haven't read the full text. I don't think it was ethical for the authorities to lie about the date of discontinuation of fluoridation. Anyhow, the authors actually didn't entirely dismiss the idea that some people have a genuine intolerance to fluoride. They wrote "the significant decrease in the number of other skin rashes leaves room for speculation, seeming to favor the view that a small segment of the population may have some kind of intolerance to fluoride. This group of people should be studied further. The most frequently reported symptoms that disappeared from the time of actual to known discontinuation of fluoridation seemed to be itching and dryness of the skin." This is consistent with what others have found in double-blind trials. Also, saying that symptoms were caused by a fear of fluoridation is only one way of looking at it. An alternative explanation that the placebo effect was involved in the reduction of symptoms makes more sense, considering that the placebo effect is well established. It also seems that the researchers only asked about the presence or absence of particular symptoms, not about improvements or worsening of symptoms. And they didn't take into account that people can still have elevated levels of fluoride in their body years after their exposure has been greatly reduced. The reporting of fewer symptoms in March 1993 than in December 1992 may have been at least partly the result of the passage of four months since the discontinuation of fluoridation, instead of a mere one month. I had dramatic improvements in my hives and joint pain within a few days of avoiding fluoride, but after eight years neither have disappeared completely. I had a couple of other symptoms which disappeared after years of avoiding fluoride. There is no question that I am sensitive to fluoride, but their questionnaires probably wouldn't have picked it up. Their methodology was quite crude. Here's some other studies from Finland.
     
    http://informahealthcare.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/17453678008990817
    Alhava EM, Olkkomen H, Kauranen P, Kari T. The effect of drinking water fluoridation on the fluoride content, strength and mineral density of human bone. Acta Orthopædica Scandinavica 51 413-420 1980.
    "The highest fluoride content in bone ash was observed in women with severe osteoporosis."
    "Kuopio, the largest town in the North Savo area, is so far the only locality in Finland employing drinking water fluoridation"
    "despite having consumed drinking water fluoridation for less than 20 years, some female cases in Kuopio had quite a high content of fluoride in bone (up to 4000 ppm in cancellous bone ash). It is possible that after a lifetime of fluoridation some women in Kuopio may experience adverse effects from fluoride accumulation.
    The question of the lower limit for a toxic fluoride content in bone is still open. Jackson & Weidman (1958) felt that levels above 2000 ppm of fluoride in fat-free dry cortical bone should be considered toxic. Riggins et al. (1974) were of the opinion that a subject can be considered to have fluorosis when the concentration of fluoride in bone ash exceeds 3000 ppm."
     

    http://informahealthcare.com/doi/pdf...53678508994346
    Arnala I, Alhava EM, Kauranen EM. Effects of fluoride on bone in Finland. histomorphometry of cadaver bone from low and high fluoride areas. Acta Orthopædica Scandinavica 56 161-166 1985.
    "In Kuopio, drinking water has been fluoridated since 1959, up to 1.2 ppm. The daily intake of fluoride from foodstuffs in Finland has been estimated to be 0.56 mg.
    Fluoride is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract.… Accumulation of fluoride in bone is maximal during active growth, but the amount of fluoride in bone increases also in old age. With moderate fluoride exposure, about half of the fluoride is bound by bone and the other half is mainly excreted by the kidneys"
    "bone specimens were taken from 26 men and 17 women (Table 1) who had lived at least 10 of their last years in Kuopio in the fluoridated-water area"
    "In males [in Kuopio] the highest fluoride content in bone was 2750 ppm with no histological changes. For females, the highest fluoride concentration in bone (3890 ppm) was found in a subject with impaired renal function; she had increased osteoid volume"
    "Fluoride analysis of the cadaver material from Kuopio revealed that fluoridation of drinking water increases the fluoride concentration in bone. In some individual cases the amount of fluoride in trabecular bone may rise to relatively high levels, notably in patients with impaired renal function."
    "Fluoridation of drinking water up to 1.2 ppm apparently does not pose a potential risk to bone provided the renal function is normal. On the other hand, as evaluated by histomorphometry, fluoridation does not seem to protect against bone loss in old age."
    "The upper limit for fluoride concentration in drinking water that does not increase the amount of unmineralised bone seems to be roughly 1.5 ppm, according to the results of the drinking water analysis. We should, however, recognise that it is difficult to give a strict value for a safe fluoride concentration in drinking water, because individual susceptibility to fluoride varies."
     
    These two studies are not especially sophisticated, but they do show that people can retain excessive fluoride after living with fluoridated water for 20 years or less. The longer the exposure to fluoridated water, the greater the amount of retained fluoride will be. The prevalence of fluoridation has always been much lower in Finland and Western Europe than in Australia over the last few decades, so the fluoride contribution from processed food and drink made with fluoridated water can be anticipated to be higher here. Many fluorinated pharmaceutical drugs have also come onto the market since those studies were done.
     

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...959.x/abstract
    Seppa L, Karkkainen S, Hausen H. Caries frequency in permanent teeth before and after discontinuation of water fluoridation in Kuopio, Finland. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998 Aug;26(4):256-62.
    Abstract–
    The piped water of Kuopio, Finland, was fluoridated in 1959. Owing to strong opposition by different civic groups, water fluoridation was stopped at the end of 1992. Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the consequences of the discontinuation on dental health. Methods: In 1992 and 1995, independent random samples of all children aged 6, 9, 12 and 15 years were drawn from Kuopio and Jyväskylä, a nearby low fluoride town whose distribution of demographic and socio-economic characteristics was fairly similar to Kuopio's. The total number of subjects examined was 550 in 1992 and 1198 in 1995. Caries was registered clinically and radiographically by the same two calibrated dentists in both towns. Results: In 1992, the mean DMFS values were lower in the fluoridated town for the two older age groups, the percentage differences for 12- and 15-year-olds being 37% and 29%, respectively. For the two younger age groups no meaningful differences could be found. In 1995, the only difference with possible clinical significance was found in the 15-year-olds in favor of the fluoridated town (18%). In 1995, a decline in caries was seen in the two older age groups in the nonfluoridated town. In spite of discontinued water fluoridation, no indication of an increasing trend of caries could be found in Kuopio. The mean numbers of fluoride varnish and sealant applications decreased sharply in both towns between 1992 and 1995. In spite of that caries declined. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the decline of caries has little to do with professional preventive measures performed in dental clinics.
     

    So the efficacy of fluoridation in Finland was also questionable. There has not been any fluoridation in Finland for the past two decades.
     

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...016.x/abstract
    Occurrence of dental caries and gingivitis in low, medium and high fluoride areas in Finland
    Kaarina Parviainen… 1977
    The prevalence of gingival bleeding was found to be highest in Hamina [with the highest fluoride level in water]
     

    http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/16624
    Seppä L. · Kärkkäinen S. · Hausen H.
    Caries Trends 1992–1998 in Two Low–Fluoride Finnish Towns Formerly with and without Fluoridation
    Caries Res 2000
    The mean numbers of fluoride varnish and sealant applications had markedly decreased in 1993-1998 compared to 1990-1992. The fact that no increase in caries was found in Kuopio despite discontinuation of water fluoridation and decrease in preventive procedures suggests that not all of these measures were necessary for each child.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Steve533 For This Useful Post:

    spoon  (07-03-2013)

  4. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,800
    Thanks
    7,291
    Thanked
    9,742
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve533 View Post
    Atropos, you wrote "I know where the governments [sic] money comes from!! Why would the government care? Um, because, according to you, they are spending money on fluoride to poison our water which then costs them more money in the health system." Well done, you have blatantly contradicted yourself in the space of three sentences. It doesn't cost them more money, because it isn't their money, it's taxpayers' money. What part of that don't you understand? You are also trying to put words into my mouth again, even though I have already explicitly said that I don't think politicians are deliberately poisoning people. If you can't comprehend how politicians could make a decision and not understand its consequences, it implies that you think they have some kind of supernatural ability, because determining cause-and-effect is generally not trivial, and politicians make decisions on all kinds of things for which they are not qualified, including fluoridation.

    [/FONT]
    I'm going to break it down for you.

    Tax payers pay tax- said monies go to the government- this money, from the tax payer, becomes the governments money, which they spend to run the country, including covering the cost of fluoridation.

    Supernatural ability? Now you're really reaching. All I'm saying is that what you suggest makes no sense. If there was sufficient supporting evidenced to a high enough standard, I don't believe that our government would spend government money (yes, formerly our tax dollars but now "government funds") to poison us with fluoride then fix us up in publicly funded hospitals.

    Now, that should be clear enough for you.

    But one thing is still missing from your responses Steve.



    Quote Originally Posted by Steve533 View Post
    Atropos, the NHMRC report is shameless propaganda.
    I, and others, have asked you repeatedly for evidence to back up your claim that the nhmrc issues "propaganda". You have yet to do so, so I'm forced to conclude that you have labelled it as such because their report does not concur with your own beliefs, making your statement a piece of propaganda by definition- ironic, no?

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    hollychops  (05-03-2013),kezanazz  (06-03-2013)

  6. #104
    Pegasus's Avatar
    Pegasus is offline and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,650
    Thanks
    1,738
    Thanked
    1,738
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    I was surprised when I saw this in the paper today that no one had popped this new study news in this thread.

    Adding fluouride in water is beneficial for adults too.

    It's interesting as it flies in the face of some of the other stuff which has been posted in this thread.

    ETA: Although I do wish that news.com.au had done a grammar check on their title before posting this article

  7. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    16
    Reviews
    0
    http://www.enviro.ie/Public%20Health...3%20Master.pdf

    Irish environmental scientist Declan Waugh has made a new report available. It contains information on fluoride intolerance or sensitivity (causing epigastric pain, bowel pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, headaches, paresthesias, muscular fibrillation, pains in arms and legs, arthritis, joint pains, muscular weakness, extreme tiredness, depression, worsening of known allergic complaints, urticaria, dermatitis, skin irritation, stomatitis, mouth ulcers, visual disturbances, and excessive thirst), SIDS, dental fluorosis, hypothyroidism, obesity, diabetes, musculoskeletal pain, arthritis, osteoporosis, Down's syndrome, substance abuse, early onset dementia, Alzheimer's disease, autism, epilepsy, sarcoidosis, depression, suicide, osteosarcoma, prostate cancer, dementia, leukaemia, pancreatic cancer, brain cancer, skin cancer, melanoma, bladder cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, oesophageal cancer, asthma and other respiratory diseases, inflammation, oxidative stress, reduced IQ, decreased melatonin production, early onset of sexual maturity, hyperparathyroidism, calcium deficiency, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, endocrine disruption, thyroid cancer, immune disorders, blood disorders, stroke, kidney failure, infertility, and ADHD.

    A quote: "This report shows how premature death and health inequalities are far greater for all ages in the ROI [The Republic of Ireland] compared to NI [Northern Ireland] or other European countries.
    In each of the disease categories a highly significant increased burden of disease has been recorded for Southern Ireland with the most pronounced variation being early onset dementia (450%) followed by sudden infant death syndrome (300%), sarcoidosis (250%), congenital hypothyroidism (220%), osteoporosis (100%), Down's syndrome (83%), depression (78%), rheumatoid arthritis (60%), diabetes (60%) and cancer where significant increased risk for a wide range of cancers are to be found in ROI compared to non-fluoridated NI and Europe."

    Benji and hollychops, apparently you didn't read what I wrote very carefully. I wrote "I don't know why you think that fluoride in water is good for teeth" in response to Benji's post about "fluoride in tap water". I only referred to water, not toothpaste or dental treatments. Regular fluoride toothpaste has a fluoride concentration around 1000 times higher, or more, than fluoridated water, and fluoride treatments applied by dentists have a fluoride concentration about 10 times higher than toothpaste. So the fluoride concentration of fluoridated water is completely different, and ingesting fluoride is completely different to topical application. Fluoride pastes might reduce cavities, but that has nothing to do with water fluoridation. The most likely single reason for the dramatic falls in rates of cavities in developed countries over the past several decades, with or without fluoridation, is better nutrition. Increased consumption of antibacterial chemicals in cheese, herbs and spices, and/or fruit and vegetables might also have helped.

    pegasus, your idea that "all the danger of chemicals on our bodies is dependent upon the concentrations" is incorrect. The doses are often more important than concentrations, and dose and concentration are definitely not the same thing. The scientific literature on fluoride ingestion emphasises the importance of total dose. Even if concentrations of fluoride in fluoridated water were tightly controlled, which they aren't, the doses people receive would be uncontrolled. People drink highly varied amounts of water and other drinks made up with water, eat different amounts of processed food, and so on. A double-blind trial found that 1% of children suffer symptoms from just 1 mg of fluoride, which is a small dose. Other double-blind trials have also confirmed fluoride sensitivity at doses to which people in fluoridated communities are routinely exposed, affecting up to 5% of the population. A daily dose as low as 2 mg can depress thyroid function. People have been found to suffer from skeletal fluorosis with a concentration of fluoride in their drinking water of only 0.5 ppm. The fluoride concentration of breast milk is extremely low in comparison to fluoridated water, and feeding babies formula made up with fluoridated water is not safe.

    NRC report: "several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function"
    "Subclinical hypothyroidism is considered a strong risk factor for later development of overt hypothyroidism. Biondi et al. (2002) associate subclinical thyroid dysfunction (either hypo or hyperthyroidism) with changes in cardiac function and corresponding increased risks of heart disease.… subclinical hypothyroidism is associated with increased cholesterol concentrations, increased incidence of depression, diminished response to standard psychiatric treatment, cognitive dysfunction, and, in pregnant women, decreased IQ of their offspring"

    http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies...sensitivity01/
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/shea-1967/
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/galletti-1958.pdf
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/huang-2009.pdf

    Here is an editorial on Hans Moolenburgh's book on investigations into fluoride sensitivity. Moolenburgh and 11 other Dutch doctors carried out double-blind trials, and fluoridation was banned in the Netherlands not long afterwards.
    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/213/...3_p109-162.pdf

    Atropos, if you are so interested in why I think the NHMRC report is shameless propaganda, you should have paid attention to my answer to that question several posts ago instead of completely ignoring it. It should be obvious from a comparison of the NHMRC report with the NRC report, anyhow. Evidently you still don't understand that politicians are not free to do whatever they like with government money. If they spend government money on themselves beyond their allowances, or deposit it in their personal bank accounts, they risk going to jail for fraud. When politicians are voted out of office or retire they don't have to pay back any government debt they helped to rack up, and they can't take part of any government budget surplus with them either. As I said before, it isn't the politicians' money. Australian government debt happens to have been relatively low in recent history, but government debt in the US, Europe, and Japan is huge. Those politicians don't seem to have been particularly worried about spending too much government money.

    No matter how many times I tell you that most politicians probably don't understand the consequences of fluoridation, that idea seems to be unthinkable to you. You simply assume yet again that they must know exactly what they are doing. That's some kind of bizarre zealotry in my opinion. Carl Sagan would not be impressed. I've already said that most politicians do not have a science education, which is a fact. It is also a fact that most serving Australian politicians have never been called on to vote on fluoridation. There is no evidence that many of them have spent even 10 minutes doing their own research on the subject. There is no reason to believe that the average Australian politician has any real understanding of fluoridation, yet you find it impossible to even contemplate that they might not fully understand it, and have the gall to say that what I suggest makes no sense. Unbelievable.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Steve533 For This Useful Post:

    spoon  (07-03-2013)

  9. #106
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,005
    Thanks
    1,052
    Thanked
    3,525
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Ah Steve - still going I see? Lol.

  10. #107
    Eko's Avatar
    Eko is offline Acrobatic Dominatrix.
    Winner 2012 - Most Politically Correct Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,837
    Thanks
    1,083
    Thanked
    1,427
    Reviews
    9
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Tl;dr

  11. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,800
    Thanks
    7,291
    Thanked
    9,742
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Bizarre zealotry? Pot, kettle, black?

    You deliberately misinterpret my, and other people's posts and questions, you can't back up your statements, you admit to having no formal qualifications on the subject but are banging on like some great authority on the subject, but I'm the "zealot"- Hahahahahahaha, ok, no worries. Sorry Steve, I'm just not arrogant enough to assume I know more than scientific authorities on the subject. I don't know why you find that hard to believe. You didn't answer the question about the nhmrc. Still zero conclusive evidence of them issuing propaganda.
    Last edited by Atropos; 07-03-2013 at 09:23.

  12. #109
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    309
    Thanks
    236
    Thanked
    86
    Reviews
    0
    I think fluoride in water is a good thing healthwise, but I think that people deserve to be able to choose not to drink it if they dont agree with it, and putting it in the water supply removes that choice. So really, I dont know what I think!

  13. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,800
    Thanks
    7,291
    Thanked
    9,742
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    ...


 

Similar Threads

  1. when did u start using fluoride toothpaste?
    By SoThisIsLove in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 30-11-2012, 10:29
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 20-03-2012, 07:15
  3. Added Fluoride to water linked to infertility
    By posative in forum Conception & Fertility General Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27-01-2012, 14:24

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

FEATURED SUPPORTER
Baby Car Seats and Infant Car RestraintsBuying a baby car seat? Check out our 'go-to' links here!
FORUMS - chatting now ...
Dyson AirwrapGeneral Chat
Twins 👯- how did your pregnancy go?Pregnancy & Birth General Chat
Share your Christmas MenuGeneral Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
Dashing N Delicious DecemberConception & Fertility General Chat
35 and TTC baby number 3Conception & Fertility General Chat
Struggling with TeenagersGeneral Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
REVIEWS
"Made bed time less anxious"
by Meld85
My Little Heart Whisbear - the Humming Bear reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›

ADVERTISEMENT