do you support fluoridation of mains water?

[ricecrackers]

Fluoride debate reignited

Published: 1:46PM Sunday January 09, 2011 Source: ONE News

Source: Thinkstock
Anti-fluoridation campaigners in New Zealand are claiming a victory after America's federal government dropped its recommended level of fluoride in water for the first time in 50 years.

Fluoridation of water supply is considered by the World Health Organisation as one of the top public health successes of the 20th century but some say you can have too much of a good thing.

The US Department of Health and Human Service is now recommending fluoride levels be lowered to no more than 0.7 milligrams per litre (ppm).

"Making this adjustment now will promote public health, improve oral health and reduce rates of fluorosis," spokesman Howard Koh said.

A government study shows up to a third of American children are affected by fluorosis - a spotting and streaking of teeth associated with too much fluoride. Previously the recommended fluoride level was 0.7 - 1.2 milligrams per litre of water but the new recommendation is 0.7.

The Fluoride Action Network New Zealand said the study shows officials have been wrong for the last 50 years.

"If they've been wrong for the last 50 years why would people simply believe them today. People need to do their own research," spokeswoman Mary Byrne said.

"There's lots and lots of studies associating fluoride with serious adverse health affects."

But the Ministry of Health said fluoridation of water prevents up to 270,000 decayed, missing and filled teeth every year.

Just over half the population has access to fluoridated tap water with levels of between 0.7 and 1 milligram per litre. The level depends on local councils and 26 out of 69 in New Zealand add fluoride to drinking water. Hastings and Kapiti dropped their level to 0.7ppm last year, against the advice of the ministry, while Whakatane and New Plymouth have resolved to review fluoridation.

Dentists maintain that NZ's system is working as our fluorosis levels are low and mild while in America there can be a more is better attitude.

"People tend to go and use supplements and mouth washes which are not used that much in New Zealand," said NZDA president John Bell.

Byrne believes New Zealand's Health Ministry now has no choice but to also recommend councils drop their maximum fluoride levels to 0.7ppm.

"Councils are adding a hazardous waste to drinking water," she said.

The Ministry of Health said it takes developments into consideration and it is committed to balancing the benefits of fluoridation against any adverse health effects.

Email this article Print this article Text size+-more...

http://tvnz.co.nz/health-news/fluoride- ... ed-3994878

and here, 50 reasons to oppose it...
http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non ... 11037.html

in Australia we typically have 1 mg ppm. Australia has generally been the guinea pig for fluoridation. East Germany had it, but when they reunited with the West they stopped it. Germany does not fluoridate its water.

interesting vote so far, i'd be more interested to know the science or reasoning behind why people voted yes

[monotonehell]

Useless graph is useless.

It's hard to draw any conclusions from that graph because there's more than just the added fluoride in water to consider. Oral health has improved dramatically since WW2 in most developed countries due to Oral health product producers marketing it aggressively. There's also fluoride in tooth paste and other dental products...

We cant really argue either position because no real data exists that isolates cause and effect ceteris paribus. Studies have shown that it does reduce cavities developing, but there's no good data on any of the mooted side effects. When introduced, there was little use of fluorinated toothpaste (especially by poorer people). This has changed a lot in recent times, so you could possibly argue that in richer areas water fluoridation is not necessary (but don't "rich" people all drink bottled/filtered water anyway?)

But still not enough data. Therefore I can neither endorse or deny this motion.

[Prince George]

[ricecrackers]

Useless graph is useless.

It's hard to draw any conclusions from that graph because there's more than just the added fluoride in water to consider. Oral health has improved dramatically since WW2 in most developed countries due to Oral health product producers marketing it aggressively. There's also fluoride in tooth paste and other dental products...

We cant really argue either position because no real data exists that isolates cause and effect ceteris paribus. Studies have shown that it does reduce cavities developing, but there's no good data on any of the mooted side effects. When introduced, there was little use of fluorinated toothpaste (especially by poorer people). This has changed a lot in recent times, so you could possibly argue that in richer areas water fluoridation is not necessary (but don't "rich" people all drink bottled/filtered water anyway?)

But still not enough data. Therefore I can neither endorse or deny this motion.

so if there is not sufficient data to support the addition of fluoride to the water, then why should we support or accept it?

[Aidan]

interesting vote so far, i'd be more interested to know the science or reasoning behind why people voted yes

It's because I regard the advantages as significant and the disadvantages as insignificant.

Dental health in parts of Australia which did not flouridate mains water (most notably Queensland) is inferior to those parts that do.

The arguments against contaminated fluorosilicates used in the USA are valid, but irrelevant to our situation.

Problems such as fluorosis are generally only an issue where the fluoride levels in the water are naturally high - the concentration from artificial fluoridation is much lower.

[ricecrackers]

i remain unconvinced.

all the 'official documentation' i have read references the same quote (ie one of the 10 greatest medical achievements of the 20th Century.) that reads like propaganda to me.
if its so great then why dont the Germans do it?

even my Dentist has informed me that the most important part of tooth care is the brushing, not the fluoride in the toothpaste. (or water)

[Wayno]

i believe germany has a law that bans the compulsory administration of medication - water fluoridation fits that category.

I remain unconvinced too, but FUD gets spread too easily on topics such as this.

[ricecrackers]

i believe germany has a law that bans the compulsory administration of medication - water fluoridation fits that category.

I remain unconvinced too, but FUD gets spread too easily on topics such as this.

i dont understand why that should be a problem. it is a toxic substance after all, thats fact not hysteria.
i believe their should be an open debate on the topic.

there is too much of a "shut up and fall into line" culture in this country

[monotonehell]

...it is a toxic substance after all, thats fact not hysteria...

Is it? Please provide references.
An overdose may lead to gastric issues, but that's at a very high concentration. Almost any substance can cause issues at a high enough dose. Your statement sounds like FUD.

[ricecrackers]

...it is a toxic substance after all, thats fact not hysteria...

Is it? Please provide references.
An overdose may lead to gastric issues, but that's at a very high concentration. Almost any substance can cause issues at a high enough dose. Your statement sounds like FUD.

you see this is the problem. this attitude of slapping a label on anyone who questions the official line.
this was the climate in which Galileo had to operate and yet now with hindsight he is regarded as one of the greatest scientists of all time.

i suggest you read up on the toxicity of sodium fluoride and what it can do to your body and brain. however if you want to remain blissfully ignorant, that is your choice.

[Nathan]

you see this is the problem. this attitude of slapping a label on anyone who questions the official line.

Like labelling anyone that disagrees with your particular viewpoint as "sheeple"?

[ricecrackers]

you see this is the problem. this attitude of slapping a label on anyone who questions the official line.

Like labelling anyone that disagrees with your particular viewpoint as "sheeple"?

untrue
you're putting 1 and 1 together and getting 3

[Wayno]

there is too much of a "shut up and fall into line" culture in this country

maybe, but generally not in this forum. FUD is obviously widespread - otherwise we'd all be agreeing right now.

As mono suggests, please provide references (ideally related to Australian fluoride levels causing problems) and we'll proceed from that point.

[ricecrackers]

there is too much of a "shut up and fall into line" culture in this country

maybe, but generally not in this forum. FUD is obviously widespread - otherwise we'd all be agreeing right now.

As mono suggests, please provide references (ideally related to Australian fluoride levels causing problems) and we'll proceed from that point.

you speak of FUD..another one of these internet memes
what about the FUD of climate change?
that would have to be one of the greatest examples of FUD to sell an idea in history

[Wayno]

you speak of FUD..another one of these internet memes
what about the FUD of climate change?
that would have to be one of the greatest examples of FUD to sell an idea in history

Maybe, but that's a diversion from the topic at hand. References please so we can continue...