After throwing around all the FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) there is no mention of the benefits such as my son who is 21 has never had a cavity.
And I had a terrible childhood with 6 monthly dental checks always reveling 2-6 cavities requiring drilling and filling. My dental problems effectively came to an end upon moving to an area in the US that had water fluoridation. continuing my 6 monthly dental checks I sometimes went years with no additional drilling and filling.

Yes, I had the above described level 1 florosis as did my son and many children in the area but there has never been any indications of any more advanced problems. The small white specs went away as I grew into adulthood.

In light of the general unwillingness of the Aus population to have dental health adhered to until a significant problem manifests I totally support water fluoridation to help our children here in Aus prevent cavities

I totally agree with Bruce. Both my daughters have had cavity free teeth while I was at the dentists every six months in my childhood getting fillings. Fluoridation has been one of the greatest benefits introduced by the public health authorities. One only has to travel to countries where fluoridation is not in place and look at the teeth of the people living there. One can only praise the dentists who unlike so many professionals argued the case for fluoridation which was against their self-interest. Compare the action of dentists acting in the public interest compared to that of teachers and real-estate agents over the past thirty years.

I'll third the motion.. 36 and had next to no dental problems compared to my parents with a mouth full of fillings...

Yes because anecdotal evidence is what we should all base rational decisions on... And while we're medicating the masses lets add some aspirin to the water just to stop a few heart attacks...

Over 1,860 professionals signed a statement urging the US Congress to stop water fluoridation and hold Congressional hearings, citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html

Since the first FAN August 2007 statement, the following has occurred:

-- The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Canada’s leading voice on environmental health issues, released a statement opposing fluoridation.

-- The National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation support replacing it with this caution: “Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.” (1)

-- Researchers reporting in the Oct 6 2007 British Medical Journal indicate that fluoridation never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (2)

-- A qualitative review of studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ, conclude Tang el al., in "Fluoride and Children’s Intelligence: A Meta-analysis” in Biological Trace Element Research (e-published 8/10/08)

-- Scientific American editors wrote in January 2008, "Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland"

-- Dr. A. K. Susheela, a leading fluoride expert, explains in a video why US physicians overlook fluoride as a possible cause of diseases commonly caused by fluoride. http://tinyurl.com/Susheela

-- An expert panel Health Canada commissioned to study the risks of fluoride exposure says the government should cut the recommended amount in drinking water, encourage the use of low-fluoride toothpaste by children and have makers of infant formula reduce levels in their products. The panel recommended reduced fluoride exposure because it was worried children might be getting too much of the chemical.

Signers to the FAN statement include:

-- Dr. Arvid Carlsson,winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine

-- Vyvyan Howard, MD, PhD, President, International Society of Doctors for the Environment

Carlsson says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”

http://www.FluorideAction.Net

While we're rolling out the anecdotal evidence, my children too (unlike their parents) have grown up without cavities. They were born and raised in Queensland, so managed this feat entirely without the assistance of a fluoridated water supply.

There are ways to apply fluoride directly to the teeth, without the need to be ingesting daily yet another chemical substance into our bodies, where its longterm effects are still not properly understood.

Adding fluoride to the water supply no doubt has an environmental impact as well.

Readers may wish to learn about the unintended consequences of water fluoridation. My 2005 research paper, "Water Fluoridation and Crime in America" was published in the international peer-reviewed scientific journal Fluoride, and it suggests that America is paying an extremely high (and unknown) price for its policy of water fluoridation.

Using a database for the year 2000 of about 80 million Americans living in 327 cities having populations of over 75,000 each, and comparing statistics for major crimes between fluoridated and unfluoridated places, it was found that sodium silicofluoride was associated with crime levels which were elevated by 37.6%; that hydrofluorosilicic acid was associated with crime levels which were elevated by 46.8%; and that sodium fluoride was associated with an astounding 84.9% increase in major crime levels!

The paper is available online at: www.fluorideresearch.org/381/files/38111-22.pdf

Thank you! Comments may be addressed to jayseavey1618@earthlink.net

Jay - did you control for the average wealth of the residents and the age of the city? It seems pretty obvious to me that older cities might be a) poorer and b) fluoridated, whereas newer cities which attract more mobile elites are likely to start out unfluoridated and -- thanks to liberal political agitation -- stay that way.

To Jon J:

My study did not control for average wealth or city age. It examined 327 U.S. cities of all ages, from coast to coast, which included more than a quarter of the US population. The sheer size of the database tended to minimize the need for controls which would be useful if a smaller or less representative sample had been selected.

It is not at all obvious to me that older cities are more likely to be poor, and, hence, fluoridated; or that liberal politics leads to lower levels of fluoridation. Are Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, and San Francisco poor? You'd have to study them precinct by precinct, but at a glance, they don't appear poor. All are relatively old, liberal, centers of refined and advanced culture - and fluoridated.

In the U.S., support for fluoridation comes from both liberals and conservatives, and from both Democrats and Republicans. If anti-fluoridationists come from any particular part of the political or socio-economic spectrum, the common denominator among them has eluded my attention in the course of several years' study. New Jersey sticks out as a place you might expect to be highly fluoridated, but it isn't; but it also has a very high concentration of pharmaceutical firms. Perhaps a modest understanding of high school chemistry is a common denominator among anti-fluoridationists.

Best wishes,
Jay

There is a simple test to see if you are affected by fluoride.
1. Blood test for fluoride levels before December 2008.
2. Test again in 12 months

The first few writers (above) who support fluoridation because they observed one or two children with no tooth decay, are extraordinary in their blind faith and lack of critical thinking.
I come from Geelong, Victoria, never fluoridated (though government is threatening it now). There are many many children here with perfect teeth, and many with bad teeth. Just like in Melbourne, fluoridated for 30 years. How do the children get good teeth in a non-fluoridated town. The same as anywhere: decent food, regular cleaning, access to proper dental care.
Another writer says that countries with no fluoridation have poor teeth. Absolutely wrong. WHO figures show national average tooth decay for 12 year olds. Netherlands regularly turns up as the best in the world. Netherlands was briefly fluoridated in late 60s to early 70s, then quit fluoridation dues to (a) a medical study that showed up too many side-effects (b) their parliament determined that it violated citizens human rights.
Nowhere in continental Europe practices fluoridation and many of those countries enjoy the best dental health of anywhere in the world.
Tasmania shows the worst figures for 12 year old tooth decay of Australian states - yet it is the most heavily fluoridated state, and started before other states. Fluoridation is failing, it is unnecessary, and it is toxic, at least for some consumers.
Health damage from total fluoride intake, from so many hidden sources, is now a silent epidemic in Australia.

Deja Vu. Robert McCray President of the ADAQ at the time said 'Dentists support water fluoridation for altruistic reasons.'

What are these altruistic motives?

Water fluoridation of 75% of Australia's population has failed to save the teeth of the economically disadvantaged. The queues for free dental care in states that have all these magical benefits of fluoridated water are longer than in Queensland.

There is a shortage of dentists and it has been obvious for at least a decade. Only 20% work in free clinics. Health Departments want kids with the most need to see the dentist but where will they find dentists willing to move from private practise to free clinic practise?

Two major reasons for cavities is not brushing teeth and not being able to see a dentist at the right time - see Courier Mail Oct 12, 2008. 'Dentists now warn a generation of kids will grow up facing rotting teeth, extractions and gum disease.'

Fluoridation is a costly failure because it has not solved the problem of poor parenting, too few dentist, and too few dentists wanting to leave private practice and the ever increasing cost of visiting your private dentist.

TEETH -- selfish only considering something that we should all PERSONALLY be responsible for.
TOXICITY --can you please explain why it is not recommended to mix baby formula with fluoridated water and also children are advised not to swallow toothpaste. Not to mention other health issues embracing toxicity.
HISTORY --Unfluoridated - my complete family has kept all their own teeth from my grandparents down to my grandchildren. I am 65 and still have my own teeth.... NOT A PRIVILEGED UPBRINGING FINANCIALLY,(public housing) however, a very caring,good diet,good habits nurtured background.
I question the Queensland Government's hidden agendas. More to the point I question THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT"S AGENDA.

HIDDEN AGENDA : WILL WE SEE FUTURE PRIVATISATION OF OUR MOST PRECIOUS COMMODITY? that would be scary.

If cardiologists rounded up their mates and pressured the government to add aspirin to our drinking water because it could save lives, we'd be up in arms.

If dieticians ganged up to add vitamin C and iron to our water because it could save lives, we'd be spitting chips about that too.

What crazy thinking has resulted in an industrial waste product (confirmed by Victoria's DHS) being forcibly added to the entire population's drinking water, even though it won't even save a life? All because dentists, so very narrowly focussed on teeth rather than the effect on our entire bodies, have ganged up to push our politicians into thinking it will save them money.

When the government aims to alter a body part of our entire population without our permission, we have indeed lost our freedom. What the hell are they thinking when they ride over our basic rights like that?

Deb

This article has managed to bring some of the nutters out. Some casual observations about fluoride in water. Like a few of the early posters, I have also benefitted from the addition of fluoride to water. Public health agencies worldwide recommend fluoride for prevention of dental caries http://www.healthvermont.org/family/dental/fluoride/fluoridationstudy.pdf http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm http://www.dentalhealth.org.uk/faqs/leafletdetail.php?LeafletID=17 http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/environ/fluor-eng.php

Fluoride may be toxic in large concentrations (the LD50 is about 180 mg/kg), however, like most chemicals there is a range over which it is toxic and a range over which it is not. As Paracelsus said "it is the dose that makes the poison. Addition of fluoride to water is about 1 mg/L. Natural water sources contain between less than 0.1 mg/L up to 14 mg/L. The No Observable Adverse Effect Level is 1.8 mg/kg body weight/day. You would need to consume more than 1L/kg body weight of artificially fluoridated water to even get close. Consider that for a moment. How much water do you weigh? How much water do you drink every day? How could you get harmed from drinking fluoridated water?

Switzerland has indeed stopped fluoridation of their water (well only Basle had it), but only because they add fluoride to salt.

Since the 1970s, when fluoridated toothpaste became available, there has probably been less need to add fluoride to water. However, considerable evidence in the US indicates the fluoridation benefits of toothpaste don’t reach the poorest socio-economic groups, probably because they cannot afford or don’t regularly impose teeth brushing. Therefore, there remains a public health argument to supplement low fluoride waters with fluoride.

Fluoride and crime again.

www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf

"From his research, Masters has claimed to be able to predict the estimated cost of increased prison populations due to water fluoridation. For example, in a 2003 appearance before the Palm Beach County (Florida) Commission, Masters stated that if the county fluoridated with silicofluorides, they could expect an additional 819 violent crimes per year directly related to water fluoridation with a minimum additional annual cost of imprisonment of $14,391,255.(284)

Scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have reviewed th basic science that was the foundation for the claim that silicofluorides leach lead from the plumbing systems and found that many of the chemical assumptions made and statistical methods utilized in the original ecological study were scientifically unjustified. They went on to state that the research was inconsistent with accepted scientific knowledge and the authors of the original studies (Masters et al) failed to identify or account for these inconsistencies. Overall, the EPA scientists concluded that "no credible evidence exists to show that water flouridation has any quantifiable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bioaccumulation, or reactivity of lead (0) or lead (ll) compounds. (285)

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the average blood lead levels of young children in the U.S. have continued to decline since the 1970s primarily due to the phase-out of leaded gasoline and the resulting decrease in lead emissions."

Bring it on! It's an easy way to flog off toxic waste from pollutant industries!

Without the masses, this muck would end up in a hazardous waste plant.

Or perhaps those who want to take fluoride should buy their own in tablet form?

Cheers

For some reason the flouride debate really brings out the crazy in crazies. Fluoride is a substance which naturally occurs in some water supplies... it's not an artificial industrial waste product!

Choice magazine has done enough research to suggest there isn't a problem with fluoride in water:

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=105619&catId=100289&tid=100008&p=1&title=Fluoride

To quote Choice: 'The claims of those who oppose fluoridation are often based on outdated information, questionable research and selectively picking studies that support their case.'

'It’s known that high amounts of fluoride can also cause fluorosis of the bones.... It occurs most commonly in countries such as India and Pakistan where the natural concentration of fluoride in the water can be as high as 18 ppm.

'A number of studies have looked for a relationship between exposure to fluoride at about 1 ppm and the risk of bone fracture. The results have varied, but when both of the UK expert reports looked at the results overall they concluded that there’s no proven additional risk of bone fracture associated with water fluoridation.

'An Australian review in 2001 looked at 33 individual studies and concluded that fluoride to 1 ppm doesn’t have an adverse effect on bone strength, mineral density or evidence of fractures.

' There have been claims that long-term exposure to levels of fluoride even as low as those found in Australian water may cause bone cancer or birth defects.
'The two expert reports from the UK found no association between bone cancer and fluoridation. The Australian NHMRC report considered three controlled studies and came to the same conclusion.
'And there’s no sound evidence at all that fluoride causes birth defects. Studies haven’t found any increase in their prevalence, even in those areas of India and Africa that have very high levels of fluoride in the water.'

It's amazing what fluoride does to the brain, e.g. "I had fluoride tablets when I was a kid - I've got good teeth - therefore fluoride works".

Well, that's not scientific evidence and it is very poor logic.

The "Child Dental Health Survey - Queensland" advises that over 50 percent of Queensland children have perfect teeth, and this is without fluoridation. This survey also shows that the non-fluoridated Brisbane North District children, have better teeth than the fluoridated Townsville District children.

The recently published "National Survey of Adult Oral Health - 2004-06", shows the long term effect of tooth decay. It outlines the Decayed,Missing,Filled,Teeth (DMFT) rate from each State. thus:
QLD...13.1 teeth
NSW...12.8 teeth
VIC...12.8 teeth
SA....12.7 teeth
WA....13.1 teeth
TAS...13.4 teeth

Now, logic tells me that they are all the same, whether fluoridated or non-fluoridated, so water fluoridation has no long term effect on teeth.

Being called a "nut-case" or "scarmonger" or "flat-Earther" only pushes me on to dig up more facts. I believe the "nut cases" are the people that don't do the research and blindly believe that fluoride is the magic bullet.(Have you written your letter to Santa yet).

Benjamin Disraeli supposedly said “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." He was referring to the use of the persuasive power of numbers to bolster weak arguments. Given that not all communities in other Australian states have fluoridated water and some communities in Queensland do, comparing overall Queensland statistics with those for other states is rather meaningless.

Fortunately for you, a comprehensive recent publication called “Water fluoridation and children’s dental health: The Child Dental Health Survey, Australia 2002” http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/html_files/cdhs2002.pdf looks at the comparison in detail between children in communities with adequate fluoride in their water (ether natural or through amendment) with those in communities with inadequate fluoride found: “children from areas where drinking water contained negligible fluoride had poorer dental health than did children from areas with either naturally or artificially fluoridated water”.

For example, the report found for 7 year olds across Australia those living in communities with inadequate fluoride in water had 65% more DFM teeth than those living in communities with adequate fluoride in water. For permanent teeth, the data comparison was almost as damming. 12 year old children from communities with inadequate fluoride in water had 50% more DFM adult teeth than 12 year old children from communities with adequate fluoridation. The differences persisted even across metropolitan and remote communities and across socio-economic classes.

So, like in communities elsewhere, there is evidence from Australia that fluoride in toothpaste alone is not sufficient to provide adequate protection from tooth decay.

Dear Agronomist:
1. The point of the article is how much fluoride is all right.
The correct level has nothing to do with the stats you quote. If you have fluorosis, you have had too much fluoride.
2. If water fluoridation is supposed to be so vital in preventing cavities in the teeth of those who cannot afford toothpaste or brush properly, why are the queues to see the Dental clinics so long?
3. Salt fluoridation is not mandatory. Our fluoridation is.

Dear Floatinglili:
1. Wrong - the fluoride we add to our water supply IS NOT NATURAL. It really is manufactured by industry ie it is not a naturally occurring product.
Perhaps you read on the Australian Dental Association website, 'Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance'. A true statement, however the ADA does not say the naturally occurring substance goes into our water.
PS. There is a rumour some dentists do NOT agree with water fluoridation

WWG - buy a filter.
Opt out, and leave the rest of us to also make the safest choices for our kids.

The system should be opt out, as fluoride tablets are not as effective, and are more likely to have the annoying side effects such as spotting on the teeth. Overdosing is more likely in a system where you must remember to regularly dose yourself.

In so many places in the world, bottled/filtered water is the norm in any case. It need not be a significant cost to you to avoid fluoride, if it is something of a priority.

I care about my children's health, and, as with penicillin, modern anaesthetics and key-hole surgery, I am positive about the breakthroughs that the modern medical research process has given us.

Therefore, I support fluoride in the water supplies where it is not naturally occurring, as it supplies people with genuine choice!

"Therefore, I support fluoride in the water supplies where it is not naturally occurring, as it supplies people with genuine choice!"

That's a rather esoteric statement floatinglili. Fluoridated drinking water actually prevents people from "genuine choice." Fluoridated drinking water guarantees that much of the commercially grown or prepared food and beverages will contain fluoride.

And to believe that regulators can be trusted to accurately add (or assess) safe levels of fluoride to scheme water is naive indeed.

And are you insisting floatinglili that the non-believers must resort to watering their home-grown fruit and vegies with bottled or filtered water?

Apart from the scheme water, the absorptions or inhalations of hydrogen fluoride from aluminium smelting plants, ceramic tile and pipe plants, clay brick manufacturing, phosphate fertiliser manufacturing, petroleum refining etc increases the potential for exposure to a real toxic soup of fluoride.

Industrial fluorine is damaging vegetation, trees and crops around the planet and animals are even more susceptible to fluoride than humans.

Should you ever peruse the emissions' reports pertaining to the above industries in Australia, you would find that the internationally recommended maximum safe levels for hazardous emissions are breached 24/7 which regulators continue to ignore.

Brickworks and alumina plants in Australia are notorious for their excessively high emissions of fluoride.

The evidence pertaining to the health and environmental impacts of fluoride pollution destroys any argument for further contaminating humans (or the planet) with fluoridated scheme water which, in addition to fluoride, is already heavily laced with disinfectants etc - not least chlorine - a reactive, lethal and insidious carcinogen and endocrine disruptor.

"I am positive about the breakthroughs that the modern medical research process has given us."

Excellent floatinglilli. You would therefore feel very confident in consulting your pharmacist about the most effective fluoride tablets available for you and your family (providing they're in agreement of course!)

Cheers

Re: flaotinglilli's statement - "Fluoride is a substance which naturally occurs in some water supplies... it's not an artificial industrial waste product!"

Please contact Victoria's Health Department which when asked at our public meeting, confirmed that Victoria's source of fluoride for fluoridation is Geelong's Incitec Pivot fertiliser factory, where the fluoride is reclaimed from smoke stacks by 'scrubbers'. It is recycled industrial waste. Fact.

Re: Choice Magazine. Choice claims to be objective, but their fluoridation 'article' was short on facts and the conclusions are only the subjective opinion of the author. I cancelled my subscription to Choice as a result.

I think it's odd that fluoridation pushers resort to name-calling anyone who stands up for their rights and who objects to drinking chemicals they don't want. I guess some people must succumb to the brainwashing that goes with forcibly adding unnecessary chemicals to the population's drinking water.

Deb

WWG, indeed the amount of fluoride added to water is important. If you were to read my posts, you would see that I give this topic treatment. Dental fluorosis is a cosmetic condition that cases no harm. It is relatively common in areas that have high natural fluoride in their water, but relatively rare elsewhere. In most areas it is associated with young children eating toothpaste. This is why children’s toothpaste now has lower fluoride content. Once teeth are fully developed, fluorosis cannot occur. Read the reports I have posted for comparisons of dental caries in fluoridated versus unfluoridated communities, they will show the dental health benefits of fluoridation.

WWG and Deb, the most common form of fluoride added to water is hydrofluorosilicate. It decomposes immediately on addition to water into the fluoride ion and hydrated silica. Those fluoride ions are indistinguishable from all other fluoride ions.

Deb, fertilizer companies typically manufacture hydroflurosilicate because the raw materials that contain high concentrations of phosphorus contain high fluoride. During the extraction process, the fluoride is turned into a gas. The way to extract a gas from air is to use a ‘scrubber’. The hydrofluoric gas collected is then reacted with silicates (or sodium salts for sodium fluoride) to give the final product.

dickie, I haven’t heard of anyone suggesting that irrigation schemes should be fluoridated, so I don’t know how commercial vegetables will pick up fluoride from water, unless vegetables are being irrigated with town water. There is far more fluoride present in soils than there is even in fluoridated water. Plants pick up fluoride quite happily from soils.

As to the toxicity of fluorine gas, that is irrelevant to the argument. Chlorine gas is highly toxic, yet we put chloride (in the form of table salt) on our food because we need some chloride in our diet. Likewise, too much chloride is toxic, try downing a couple of kg of common salt.

Agronomist:

You say: "Dental fluorosis is a cosmetic condition that causes no harm." We had a party here one afternoon a few years ago; there were a couple young women from Australia in attendance. One was very attractive; the other might have been, except for a very visible case of dental fluorosis. The first had an attentive bunch of men gathered about her; the other did not. Observationally, it might be said that dental fluorosis plays a significant negative role in sexual selection. To say that this condition is "cosmetic", or as it is more often stated, "merely cosmetic", is to completely miss the point - the point being that the correction of this "cosmetic condition" costs a lot of bucks paid to the dentist for caps and crowns. And a lot of lost opportunities in the meantime.

According to research by H. Trendley Dean, DDS, one of the early proponents of fluoridation in America, the incidence of dental fluorosis begins to rise sharply above a level of 0.3 ppm fluoride in the drinking water. This is most intelligently viewed as the level at which fluoride poisoning begins to produce readily-visible symptoms. It is very unlikely that the teeth are the only parts of the body affected. In America, dental fluorosis has become an epidemic; Australia too, from what I've seen of it.

Humans seem to have some ability to co-exist with this toxin, and typically excrete about half of their current intake, mostly via the kidneys. The problem is the slowly-accumulating lifelong dosage - from whatever source - that doesn't get excreted; this can cause a lot of chronic illnesses after middle age, including arthritis, diabetes, and cancer. Water fluoridation significantly increases one's lifelong exposure to fluoride. Our governments, of course, having taken a strong public stance promoting fluoridation, studiously avoid any funding for research to discover the effects of their policies. They'd rather pay scientific bureaucrats to dismiss dental fluorosis as "cosmetic". Telling the big lie repeatedly, however, doesn't make it truth. Try telling it to a daughter who has dental fluorosis.

Hi Agronomist

Some market gardens also depend on scheme water and the agriculture industry in Australia was the largest user of recycled water in 2000–01, accounting for some 423 megalitres (or 82 per cent of all reuse water use.) I imagine that percentage has now increased. Add the human sewage sludge which is now being used on commercial crops and though "recycling" has its benefits, one can only "hazard" a guess on what the consumer is ingesting.

You would know better than I Agronomist that man-made chlorinated compounds are a global menace - particularly the organochlorine chemicals used on commercial crops. Chlorinated compounds react with organic matter (in abundance in scheme water reservoirs) to form the heinous dioxins.

The salt additives to drinking water (namely fluoride and chloride) are also a menace to those who need to reduce their salt intake therefore, one size does NOT fit all and discerning consumers are denied a choice.

I have been drinking rainwater from a stainless steel custom made small tank for some 14 years and my teeth are in pretty good condition. Furthermore, I did not have the "benefit" of fluoridated water during my youth. I hasten to add these teeth are pretty ancient, however, I have not yet had to resort to placing them in glass each night - thankfully!

PS: Who on earth would "try downing a couple of kg of common salt?" Nature's compounds come with a warning - man-made chemicals, force-fed to unsuspecting consumers, do not!

Jay, anecdote does not make data. Leaving aside whether not being pursued by large numbers of men constitutes harm, Australia like the US has areas with high natural fluoride content in water. Obvious dental fluorosis has always been common in people who grew up in such areas and it hasn’t seemed to have affected their ability to find partners. Some of the first descriptions of fluorosis came from Colorado Springs. More recently fluorosis has been identified more with children who swallow toothpaste when young. In communities with water fluoride concentrations of 1 mg/L or lower, the prevalence of fluorosis is low and almost entirely confined to a very mild nature that is unlikely to be noticed, except in the specific fluorosis examinations. The more visual dental fluorosis is generally associated with fluoride contents of over 1.5 mg/L. There are lots of communities, including large cities, in the Rockies and elsewhere that have high natural fluoride content in water.

In contrast to your claim, there are lots of studies of the impact of fluoride in water on public health. I have linked to a few already. Given you pride yourself on a publication, you would know how to do a search in Pubmed. A search for dental fluorosis finds almost 2000 articles, fluoride and public health finds almost 11,000. To save others from having to go through the articles, I will just post a url to a WHO review of data http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf There are so many papers that the Cochrane Collaboration have run 6 reviews and have started 2 more.

And to close, personally I would prefer my daughter to have dental fluorosis over missing teeth. You may have a different view.

dickie, I don’t really see the relevance of chlorinated insecticides to the topic at hand. All chemicals whether natural or synthetic have intrinsic toxicity that is related to the chemical itself. Natural versions of chemicals are generally no different to synthetic ones and I must admit I have never seen warning signs on any of them.

Agronomist:

Anecdote may not be data, but anecdote and observation are the things that trigger the accumulation of data, and the transformation of experience into science. There are vast areas of human experience, however, which fly beneath the radar of science, and in which anecdote and observation are as far as most people feel a need to go. This vast area is called "common sense". For most people at most times, not poisoning the water supply would come under the heading of "common sense".

It would perhaps be worthwhile to ask why many so-called "scientists" of the modern era - but curiously only in certain places - feel called upon to transcend or to avoid common sense - and to ask when this disconnect arose, and why. Hubris of this sort usually carries a price.

Agronomist, I'm familiar with the WHO report you gave the link to. The report warns about excessive fluoride consumption and describes methods for removing it from water to protect public health in the countries that have too much.

It confirms that countries with high fluoride have millions of people deformed by crippling skeletal fluorosis.

And it stresses the importance of limiting total daily fluoride intake via air, water and foods. Tea, seafoods and some root crops have very high levels. And if you're a smoker, you're copping extra fluoride from tobacco.

Now why would we want to drink the muck as well? The government can stick its 'mandatory' chemical cocktail. Unfortunately, a rainwater tank has become essential for any health conscious family wanting clean drinking water.

Deb

Agronomist, your muddled and contradictory arguments are not the product of a rational mind. You open your post with derisory comments about those who support "weak" arguments (i.e., arguments different to your own) with statistics, then proceed to do exactly the same thing yourself.
If you're troubled by weak arguments, then you need to be a bit more self-critical, because your dismissal of rockabillykilla's perfectly valid statistical comparison of adult decay rates across the nation was pathetically weak. Those statistics demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that water fluoridation is almost totally irrelevant to dental health, with almost identical decay rates across the states, but you dismissed that evidence on the grounds that "not all communities in other Australian states have fluoridated water and some communities in Queensland do, comparing overall Queensland statistics with those for other states is rather meaningless." Are you seriously suggesting that, even with 83 percent of Tasmania's population drinking fluoridated water, the magical decay-preventing powers of fluoride still have no measurable effect on overall decay rates, simply because 17 percent of the population are not drinking fluoridated water? So, when the last Tasmanian finally swallows this poisoned water, fluoride suddenly starts to take effect across the state, and decay plummets by 50 percent? And you talk of "meaningless" arguments!
You also quote, selectively, the 2002 Child Dental Health Survey to support your argument, but failed to mention that the comparisons you referred to were contradicted by the main survey findings which clearly showed no discernible differences between fluoridated and non-fluoridated states / territories. Those findings showed that the ACT, 100 percent fluoridated, had the highest rates of 12-year-old permanent decay experience, and the lowest percentage in the nation with perfect teeth. And you talk of selective use of statistics? Take the beam from your own eye.
If water fluoridation, whether of 50, 80 or 100 percent of the population has no discernible effect in reducing the dental decay rates overall, then it must, by a rational mind, be judged as a total failure. And that's without even looking at the ethical and health issues.

PeterD, you are a perfect example of what I was saying. What is the point of comparing dental caries by states when all states have communities with fluoridated water and those without? Surely you compare across the communities with and without fluoridated water? This is exactly what that study did. And their conclusions on this point were in the executive summary at the front.

Allow me to quote: “however, children from areas where drinking water contained negligible fluoride had poorer dental health than did children from areas with either naturally or artificially fluoridated water” http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/html_files/cdhs2002.pdf , page v.

I think if you had bothered to read the rest of my posts instead of offering a knee-jerk response, you might have noticed that I wasn’t using this report as evidence for any huge advantage to fluoride in protecting against dental caries. There are other studies for that and of course most children in Australia have access to fluoridated toothpaste. What the study quite clearly shows is that despite fluoride in toothpaste, there is still a benefit (albeit smaller) in water fluoridation in reducing dental caries.

If you want the clearest evidence for the benefit of water fluoridation on dental caries, you should read the original Kingston/Newburgh studies.

For all of you posters who mentioned research by so & so: could you please add who financed the research?

Btw Agro, If one force-feeds chemicals one should expect also a forced research of everybody just to get the right figures.
This paper suggests right from the start that a certain percentage of fluoride is presumed to be effective and therefore becomes biased.Later in that report it claims that fluoride can even stop caries and reverse its effect, where does that show in the tables? What about the children who did not attend the school program? Were the parents to scared to show off their kids' teeth because they were rotting or didn't they need the dentist's attention? For the pro-fluorites it certainly backs them up. In one of my previous New posts I did mention about my Dutch heritage under the Fluoride regime to follow on with same arriving in Melbourne,hence me leaving my teeth in a glass of now real spring water.
The cause of tooth decay has also not mentioned (which is mostly sugar intake and a host of chemicals from the food industry) so my opinion about this research is too onesided and therefore flawed.

For the record, all of my research was entirely self-financed. My paper, "Water Fluoridation and Crime in America", was discussed on page 2 above, and can be readily accessed at: www.fluorideresearch.org/381/files/38111-22.pdf

Jay Seavey, A.I.A., emeritus

Good point about asking who is funding research being quoted from eftfnc.

In Australia, Adelaide University is credited with most of the research. Their research is funded by the Australian government's NHMRC (National Health & Medical Research Council). The council's members are all the Chief Health Officers the Australian states and territories, whose job it is to push the government policy to fluoridate.

The purpose of the research, being funded by the government, is always to try to justify the government's policy to fluoridate.

Research credited to ARCPOH, NHMRC and Adelaide University is all done at Adelaide University by the same few fluoride-loving dental researchers who are openly biased in favour of fluoridation. Colgate, which has a commercial interest in promoting fluoride sponsors most of the research too, and heavily sponsors Adelaide University dental training.

Australia's research comes from a few researchers paid by a fluoride-pushing but ignorant government (politicians are embarrassingly ignorant of fluoridation issues), and Colgate.

Deb