If the mass of scientific evidence is correct and no human catastrophe ensues, will the anti-fluoridation lobbyists be apologising for the decades of unnecessary tooth decay suffered by Queensland residents?

Some of us would say you're right, and some of us will say you are wrong.
I think the more chemicals we feed our families, the more cases of what we are seeing, will just prove my point! Its simple! Just brush your teeth after every meal. Evolution just hasnt had time to deal with the sugar world that we most love to sink our teeth into, but you all know what the deal is! LESS CHEMICALS AND TO MORE OF THE WINED BACK OF OUR SHORT MINDEDNESS. I think you can all see it! OUR CHILDREN ARE GETTING SICKER! Work it out for yourselves.

How sad that due to ignorance we are going to pay for, and poison Queensland residents with fluoride. Children don't drink water they drink milk, juice and fizzy drinks. My two children in their late 20's ate junk food and were remiss at cleaning their teeth, yet do not have a filling in their mouth - this is not inherited as both parents have terrible teeth. The secret is these children were breast fed until 2 years old whereas neither parent was breast fed. Common sense - look at the beautiful pearly whites in breast fed indigious people around the world. Also bad baby teeth? Guess what they are meant to decay and fall out! Look to nature - applicable in many of our problems today.

Fester,

As someone who was bottle fed but had plenty of fluoride I am biased. Every time a dentist says "You had fluoride as a child didn't you" it reinforces my bias. Nevertheless I agree with your general sentiments.

Preventative medicine is actually highly political. Fluoridation and circumcision are hard to implement irrespective of irrefutable scientific merit. As you can see the first two replies disputed the merit of fluridation. Thus you can't expect vote seeking governments to rush in quickly and no action will be taken unless there has been a recent election.

Scientific merit is not the main determinant for acceptance. Indeed the only preventative medicine with scientific merit that is almost universally accepted and thus easy to implement without political concern is immunisation. You might be surprised to learn that even that has a large number of staunch opponents who claim it is dangerous, barbaric and unnecessary. They dispute its benefit tooth and nail. For examples of opponents:

http://chetday.com/novacarticles.html
http://perth.gumtree.com.au/perth/50/16326150.html
http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/

There is even anti-vaccination organisations.

For the more grounded people out there such as yourself recourse can always be made to the World Health Organisation to guage current scientific knowledge in relation to health as they tend to position themselves in accordance with research rather than politics. Unlike so many organisations in so many fields they take their job seriously.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/oralhealth/en/index2.html
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr10/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/immunization/en/

Fluoride for mind control and dumbing down. Every politician will want to give us some.

http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm

http://befreetech.com/fluoridation.htm

Both Germany and the USSR were using fluoride to control millions during the Great Brothers War.

Do we really want to subject our children to fluoride? It should be voluntary, not shoved down our throats by irresponsible (unless it's part of their agenda) government.

Three cheers for the flouride arriving .

As there are no dentists in the bush , flouride tablets, toothpaste and tooth brushes should cost next to nothing .

Major dental treatment should be free anywhere.

I am extremely pleased to see my children's teeth almost filling free .

This I put down to flouride treatment and cleaning reminders and actually brushing youngsters'teeth .

If I know people that are a bit reluctant to care for their teeth I on occasion open my mouth and show them a scary picture of shiny black and pink .Somewhere in there are the remnants of the original teeth the good Lord gave me to chew with !

Not a chemical person at all but I do like this one .

"If the mass of scientific evidence is correct and no human catastrophe ensues, will the anti-fluoridation lobbyists be apologising for the decades of unnecessary tooth decay suffered by Queensland residents?"

Funny that. I was raised without the "benefit" of fluoride.

I have consumed nothing but rain water for the last 14 years though during that period, I did require one filling. However, rest assured, my teeth are very old!

The local council test rain water for amoeba, free of charge and every few years, I have the rainwater tested for heavy metals.

I rarely retire for the evening without flossing which I believe is essential to protect against tooth decay.

Consumers need to realise that they are not just consuming fluoride in public water schemes. Their bodies must also cope with excessive amounts of chlorine, a particularly nasty chemical and I am told additional additives.

Chemicals rarely have a "catastrophic" effect on the human body. Their impact is insidious and often with long latency periods for symptons to appear.

The "mass of scientific evidence" also assured us of the "benefits" of the many hundreds of chemicals manufactured during the 20th century where many of these chemicals are now classed as carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic and dozens are now banned. Unfortunately, that was many decades later and after the horse had bolted.

Therefore, the "anti-fluoridation" lobbyists have absolutely no reason to apologise and are fully entitled to their opinion!

Decisions made by health departments are rarely influenced by the "lunatic fringes" of society.

You will need to look elsewhere for your answer to these delays!

So i suppose the mercury in your tooth fillings is harmless too? And the chlorine in the water?

For years i was proud of Qld not having flouridated water, now they've caved in too. We only need trace amounts of flouride which can be found in food and in our water already. How do you think we evolved?

Whats with the person talking about compulsory circumcision? That scares me.

As long as we load up our kids with sugary refined foods we will need fluoride. I believe the sugar industry has sponsored research on the benefits of fluoride so as to allay the fears of parents over children’s access to sugared foods such as the cola drinks and Kellogg’s.
The ranting of so called scientists and mind dead doctors on the devastation caused by ingesting fluoride is mischievous.
IF YOU CHOSE NOT TO HAVE FLUORIDE IN YOUR DRINKING WATER THE BUY A TANK AND MOVE TO WHERE THERE IS AN AVAILABLE DENTIST

Dearie me. All this flaming from the pro-fluoride group.

More curious is why these people with a passion haven't taken fluoride tablets if they were so worried about the lack of it in public water schemes.

"Physician, heal thyself."

Dickie

"The "mass of scientific evidence" also assured us of the "benefits" of the many hundreds of chemicals manufactured during the 20th century where many of these chemicals are now classed as carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic and dozens are now banned. Unfortunately, that was many decades later and after the horse had bolted.

Therefore, the "anti-fluoridation" lobbyists have absolutely no reason to apologise and are fully entitled to their opinion!"

What is needed is scientific evaluation, not scaremongering based on a gut feeling. Whether it be alcohol, tobacco, the relation of atmospheric CO2 levels to the Earth's temperature, or radiation, the evidence for harm is science based. And where there is harm, as with chlorination, what is of concern is the net benefit. So while there is no better alternative for water purification, chlorine will continue to be used.

Unfortunately, water fluoridation is a popular subject for fear campaigns, to the detriment of the health of Queenslanders.

Water fluoridation has thus far shown no ill effects after extensive evaluation over many decades.

Yes, you are entitled to have an opinion, Dickie, but does your opinion entitle you to cause others harm?

"What is needed is scientific evaluation, not scaremongering based on a gut feeling."

Get one thing straight Fester. Unlike you, I don't make claims which I am unable to substantiate.

"Water fluoridation has thus far shown no ill effects after extensive evaluation over many decades."

Well take your tablets mate and stop ya sookin.

"Yes, you are entitled to have an opinion, Dickie, but does your opinion entitle you to cause others harm?"

And what "harm" would that be Fester? The real harm on issues like this, is the suppression of information by senior bureaucrats and your arrogance in over-ruling other people's opinions.

I remind you that the public are fully entitled to as much information as possible. They may then make an educated assessment and either reject the various findings or accept them.

And unlike the dictatorial edicts that you spruik, I like to share my research with others.

"And where there is harm, as with chlorination, what is of concern is the net benefit.'

Hmmmm....."net benefit" eh? That's bureauspeke Fester, used often by the public service these days, isn't it?

And since I significantly alluded to chlorine and other organochlorines (not fluoride), I have included the following for posters' perusal.

I advise that the influential chlorine industry would not be happy with these assessments.

http://www.epidem.com/pt/re/epidemiology/abstract.00001648-200405000-00021.htm;jsessionid=HZvYSHj8lFlJ2l0v5Wfsph0mG5y5dQF6lRF2sG7pHfYqtYCxJnhX!-1288052477!181195628!8091!-1

http://www.pure-earth.com/chlorine.html

Now take a cold shower, Fester. Mind that chlorine though!

Dickie

"Get one thing straight Fester. Unlike you, I don't make claims which I am unable to substantiate."

The benefits of water fluoridation are a matter of scientific fact, not opinion. They are measurable and real. Your claim that there are insidious health effects from water fluoridation is unsubstantiated, and thus opinion.

"Well take your tablets mate and stop ya sookin."

Water fluoridation is much more effective than tablets. So why go for second best where the public health is concerned?

"And what "harm" would that be Fester? The real harm on issues like this, is the suppression of information by senior bureaucrats and your arrogance in over-ruling other people's opinions."

The harm from not fluoridating is the unnecessary tooth decay, and the pain, suffering and expense that this entails. Again, this is real and measurable, and not a matter of opinion. I'm sorry if you think me arrogant, but I believe that strong scientific evidence should take precedence over unsubstantiated opinion.

Suggesting that senior bureaucrats are suppressing information about water fluoridation sounds a little fanciful. What information are they keeping secret? I think that it would be an impossible task to keep such information secret for long, and why would anyone want to keep evidence of public harm a secret anyway?

"Hmmmm....."net benefit" eh? That's bureauspeke Fester, used often by the public service these days, isn't it? "

It is valid, Dickie. Perhaps you could tell the forum how many people would suffer death or illness in the absence of chlorination, and compare this with the number suffering death or illness as a result of chlorination? Such figures would put your scary stories into perspective.

"The benefits of water fluoridation are a matter of scientific fact, not opinion. They are measurable and real.

Yes Fester, many professionals would agree with you and many would not.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:E4ORIBvliUsJ:www.newswiretoday.com/news/22240/+fluoridation+health+impacts+scientific&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=au&lr=lang_en

"Your claim that there are insidious health effects from water fluoridation is unsubstantiated, and thus opinion."

Err......could you point out where I made this claim about fluoride, Fester?

"Water fluoridation is much more effective than tablets.

Again, nothing to support your claims, just banging your gums and forcing your "expert" opinion.

http://www.orchiddental.com/faq.htm

In fact, I'm in agreement that chlorine protects against water-borne diseases but the serious health impacts of chlorine have been known for decades. I'm interested to learn why the chemical and pharmaceutical industry, with government support, has not see fit to develop a safer alternative.

"Suggesting that senior bureaucrats are suppressing information about water fluoridation sounds a little fanciful."

Don't recall mentioning fluoride here either Fester. How you jump to conclusions.

"Fanciful" eh Fester? In an attempt to mitigate your naivety, please peruse excerpts of the latest public health scandal which made front page head-lines of the West Australian only yesterday:

"Potentially embarrassing and damning public health information is being routinely suppressed by Federal and State Governments which in extreme cases could border on official corruption.

"Researchers have found that governments in all states have been guilty over the past six years of using tactics to stop information being made public, including blocking funding, trying to sanitise or delay publication of damaging reports and even threatening health academics.

"A survey of 302 academics in 17 institutions across Australia found evidence of 142 cases of public health information being suppressed between 2001 and mid-2006 with more in 2005-2006 than previous years."

"The study warned that at best the suppression of public health information was very poor government practice and at worst, it was official corruption.

"In six cases, academics said they faced threats or accusations and two were forced to resign."

Now Fester, if you wish to mangle and contradict the above excerpts, take it up with the University of WA please and give me a break!

"Yes Fester, many professionals would agree with you and many would not."

Not so, Dickie. The evidence for the benefit of water fluoridation takes it out of the realm of opinion. It isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of scientific fact.

"Err......could you point out where I made this claim about fluoride, Fester?"

Sure, Dickie.

"Chemicals rarely have a "catastrophic" effect on the human body. Their impact is insidious and often with long latency periods for symptons to appear.

The "mass of scientific evidence" also assured us of the "benefits" of the many hundreds of chemicals manufactured during the 20th century where many of these chemicals are now classed as carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic and dozens are now banned. Unfortunately, that was many decades later and after the horse had bolted."

What inference were you making about fluoride here?

"Again, nothing to support your claims, just banging your gums and forcing your "expert" opinion."

Fluoride tablets were freely available in non-fluoridated areas of Queensland for many years. If this measure were as effective as water fluoridation, then why do Queenslanders suffer higher decay rates? Do you think that I should google for a few studies which demonstrate a result which is so straightforward?

"Don't recall mentioning fluoride here either Fester. How you jump to conclusions."

Well, you did say this:

"The real harm on issues like this, is the suppression of information by senior bureaucrats..."

As for your comments on corrupt bureaucrats, I look at corruption on the basis of motivation. The research cited relates to attempts to make health services look better by hiding unflattering information. But how does this relate to water fluoridation, and what motivation is there to suppress harmful information? And as water fluoridation is used world-wide, you would need a conspiracy of thousands of senior bureaucrats in many countries to suppress any harmful information. Given the regularity with which unflattering information is leaked from state health departments, I cannot see how information on harmful effects of water fluoridation could be so successfully suppressed by an international conspiracy for so long.

"And as water fluoridation is used world-wide, you would need a conspiracy of thousands of senior bureaucrats in many countries to suppress any harmful information."

"Worldwide?" That's a slight embellishment of the facts, Fester. Many Western European countries do not fluoridate their scheme water. So would the real conspiracists please stand up?

97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes:

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.

Note Dr Paul Connett PhD and his rather "unflattering" opinion of the Australian government's recent appraisal and approval to "fluoridate" Australia:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ivEiQqJp7bYJ:www.cfsw.us/2007/11/10/calling-all-pennsylvanians/+western+european+countries+name+fluoridation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://fluoridealert.org/integrity.htm

http://www.nofluoride.com/Fuzzy_Math.htm

""Worldwide?" That's a slight embellishment of the facts, Fester. Many Western European countries do not fluoridate their scheme water."

"Universal" might be the word you were thinking of, Dickie. I doubt you would have drawn the same inference had I said that tobacco usage was worldwide.

You make the point that many parts of the world do not fluoridate their drinking water, but this only makes the idea of a conspiracy of senior bureaucrats even less feasible. And rather than reel off a number of countries that dont fluoridate, you might consider why they dont fluoridate. Valid reasons make more sense than the herd mentality of Brown's cows.

Water fluoridation has proven a safe and effective means of preventing tooth decay for many decades. In the absence of ill effects and better alternatives being found in the future, I suspect that the scaremongering of anti-fluoridationists will continue to lose its effect. Then people in more parts of the earth will enjoy the substantial benefits which water fluoridation brings.

You might also like this very well referenced piece by the American Dental Association.

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

Thank you for the link, Fester. A quick perusal held my interest, particularly the following extracts from those opposed to the ADA pro-fluoride stance.

"The chemicals used to fluoridate 90% of public drinking water are industrial grade hazardous wastes captured in the air pollution-control scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry, called silicofluorides.

("Fluorine Recovery in the Fertilizer Industry - A Review," Phosphorus & Potassium, No. 103, Sept/Oct 1979.) (Also, see 1-1: "Fluoridation: A Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health", George Glasser, Journalist, St. Petersburg, FL, July 22, 1995.)

"These wastes contain a number of toxic contaminants including lead, arsenic, cadmium and even some radioactive isotopes. The phosphate rock mined in Florida for this purpose has also been mined for its uranium content!

"If not dumped in our public water supplies, these silicofluorides would have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon. The cost could increase, depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium, and arsenic are also present.

"The silicofluorides still contain these heavy metals, and other pollutants, when they are dumped into our water systems. According to Dr. Ludwig Gross, even if these pollutants are so dilute that they meet current regulatory standards, concerns remain about synergistic effects and the toxicity of both the silicofluoride ion and the bare fluoride ion itself.

"The plain fact that fluorine is an insidious poison, harmful, toxic and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amount, will remain unchanged no matter how many times it will be repeated in print that fluoridation of water supply is 'safe'." (Dr. Ludwig Gross, Renowned Cancer Research Scientist, in N. Y. Times 3/6/57.)"

Fester, the following technical paper, where the research has been performed by far more eminent scientists than any dentist, will give you an insight into how this hazardous waste has the potential to impact on humans (even on their behaviour) by elevating levels of lead in the body.

http://www.mcs-global.org/Documents/PDFs/SiF%20Pubs10.pdf

"the following technical paper, where the research has been performed by far more eminent scientists than any dentist, will give you an insight into how this hazardous waste has the potential to impact on humans (even on their behaviour) by elevating levels of lead in the body."

Now Dickie, if an eminent scientist announced a new theory which explained the current flux in climate by natural phenomena, would you like to see some proof or would you be satisfied with the eminence?

All the hypothesised methods by which fluoride can cause harm need to be backed up by observational studies. You might note that when an observational study suggests an association, other studies are then performed to confirm the association. In the case of water fluoridation and bone effects, some observational studies suggested an association between water fluoridation and a slight increase in the number of hip fractures. This association was discounted as further studies showed either no effect or a reduction in the number of hip fractures.

If you would care to look at q18 from "The fluoride debate"

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question18.html

you might note that the antifluoridationists have set an example since followed by many climate change denialists. They see fit, at least in this instance, to quote from studies which fit their agenda, and ignore subsequent research which discounts those studies.

The American Dental Association has a large resource on the benefits and safety of water fluoridation. It includes many links to eminent public health associations. But if you want to see the nail holes, like I do, there is research to back up the claims.

http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/index.asp#ar

Fester

I haven't time at present to read your links, however, a cursory perusal indicates to me that you are off track with the link in my previous post.

That link does not deal with bone effects such as hip fractures.

The research has been performed on:

Silicofluoride, Neurotoxicity and Behaviour and perhaps the educational failure of most health professionals to research data linking treatment of silicofluoride in public water supplies with a higher uptake of lead.

I see no indication that the ADA has even considered the evidence on lead.

Anyway, the best I can recommend at the moment is for you to enjoy your silicofluoride laced refreshments and I shall continue enjoying my water direct from my small stainless steel water tank.

Bottoms up!

"a cursory perusal indicates to me that you are off track with the link in my previous post."

I was giving an example of how the scientific process is being distorted, not specifically commenting on silicofluorides and lead.

"I see no indication that the ADA has even considered the evidence on lead."

Yes they have, and you can find this excerpt on page 39 of the following link:

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."

Yes, enjoy your tank water, Dickie, but for good reasons, not unfounded ones.

"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."

I must assume you are referring to the USEPA Fester?

Following are petitions from the senior scientists and toxicologists (from the USEPA,) which they presented to Congress and the EPA administrator:

http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/fluroride%20.unions.congress.htm

http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/flouride.unions.epa.a.2005.htm

Now that I have offered you threads to confirm that the overwhelming majority of health professionals, employed by the EPA have vigorously protested over fluoridating public water schemes, perhaps you could substantiate your claim that they have not, Fester?

Dickie

"Now that I have offered you threads to confirm that the overwhelming majority of health professionals, employed by the EPA have vigorously protested over fluoridating public water schemes, perhaps you could substantiate your claim that they have not, Fester?"

What the EPA (US) was commenting on was the research by Masters et al on silicofluorides and lead, which left them unconvinced, as you can see.

What you are referring to is a single study by Dr Elise Bassin. What convinces me is not a letter, but the same result obtained from repeated studies. This has yet to happen. The following statement is from the CDC site, last revieved on21/11/2007.

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/osteosarcoma.htm

"CDC Statement on Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma

Osteosarcoma is a type of rare bone cancer. About 400 children and adolescents in the United States are diagnosed each year, approximately 250 of whom are males. An observed association between exposure to fluoride in drinking water and the incidence (new cases) of osteosarcoma in young males has been reported in a paper entitled Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States) (Bassin et al., 2006). No apparent association was observed in females. This research, which the author describes as an exploratory analysis, adds to the scientific knowledge base on this topic. The author acknowledges that this study has limitations and further research is required to confirm or refute this observation.

This paper is based on the analysis of an initial set of cases from a 15-year effort to study fluoride and osteosarcoma by the Harvard School of Dental Medicine and collaborating organizations. The principal investigator for the overall study cautions against over interpreting or generalizing the results of the Bassin analysis, stressing that preliminary analysis of a second set of cases does not appear to replicate the findings (Douglass et al., 2006). Publications from the forthcoming analyses are expected to provide further information as to whether and to what extent an association may exist between osteosarcoma and exposure to fluoride."

ctd

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/osteosarcoma.htm

"A number of studies regarding water fluoridation and osteosarcoma have been published in the past. At this time, the weight of the scientific evidence, as assessed by independent committees of experts, comprehensive systematic reviews, and review of the findings of individual studies does not support an association between water fluoridated at levels optimal for oral health and the risk for cancer, including osteosarcoma. In a report issued in March 2006, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standard, the National Research Council (NRC, 2006) considered all available evidence on fluoride and osteosarcoma, including pre-publication data from the analysis by Dr. Bassin. The NRC Committee found the overall evidence on osteosarcoma to be tentative and mixed, and no recommendations were made related to this health concern for revising current allowable fluoride levels in drinking water. The report stated that the results of the larger Harvard study, once published, may provide an important and useful addition to the weight of scientific evidence regarding this condition.

CDC’s mission includes monitoring health, detecting and investigating health problems, developing and advocating for sound public health policies, implementing prevention strategies, promoting healthy behaviors, and fostering safe and healthful environments. The overriding goal and concern is protecting the health and well being of the public. CDC continually monitors and evaluates scientific information on fluoridation as part of its responsibility for public health assurance and protection. CDC, along with experts in the scientific community, will review published studies when they become available, will continue to monitor other scientific developments related to water fluoridation, and will provide guidance and recommendations about fluoride to the public."

ctd

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/osteosarcoma.htm

:CDC continues to strongly support community water fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure to prevent and control tooth decay and to improve overall health. Water fluoridation benefits people of all ages and socioeconomic groups, including those difficult to reach through other public health programs and private dental care. CDC has recognized community water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. Those wishing to learn more about fluoridation can find CDC’s Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States and other information at www.cdc.gov/oralhealth.

References

Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 2006;17:421–428.

Douglass CW, Joshipura K. Caution needed in fluoride and osteosarcoma study. Cancer Causes and Control 2006;17:481–482.

National Research Council Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water. Fluoride in drinking water: A scientific review of EPA’s standards. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press, 2006.

Date last reviewed: November 21, 2007
Date last modified: August 9, 2007
Content source: Division of Oral Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion"

Following is an additional protest signed August 2007 to end water fluoridation NOW and signed by over 1000 health professionals including many eminent scientists from all over the world including Australia.

http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html

Er......Fester, I'm still waiting for you to supply links to support the statement you made earlier about EPA scientists reviewing the research by others on water fluoridation:

"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"

Certainly Dickie. Here, for example, is a review of the Masters and Coplan study.

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/pp/oralhealth/fluoridation/fl-142.pdf

What you need to show that water fluoridation is harmful is repeatable results from properly conducted scientific studies. So far, you have presented no such evidence, so all I then have to go by is the mass of scientific evidence which shows water fluoridation to be a safe and beneficial public health measure.

Providing links to petitions signed by concerned health professionals and eminent scientists reminds reminds me of the Oregon Institute Petition, often used as "evidence" by climate change denialists. An entertaining Wikipedia showing the scientific invalidity of this petitions can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Now then, Dickie, I'm all for changing my mind in light of credible evidence of harm from fluoridated water. What credible evidence do you need to convince you that it is safe, or do you just know that it is harmful?

Fester

Your knickers are truly in a knot.

You are clearly unable to submit any report verifying your claim that scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency were in agreement that silicofluorides are safe.

You continue to dredge up obsolete research links (CDPHE 1999), unrelated to the EPA, and research which was performed deriving hypotheses stated in reports as far back as '88-94 including a 1992 census.

Citing the Wikipedia Oregon petition is just silly. This petition (1998) denying global warming with pathetic attempts to mimic a journal from the National Academy, has long been proven a fake. "Scientists'" signatures included rock stars, pets and dead relatives and was instigated by former oil and tobacco barons.

If you truly want to verify the signatures in the report I posted:

http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html

why don't you contact the 60 odd health professionals, including toxicologists, chemists, radiologists, medical doctors, dentists, engineers, dieticians, biologists, haz. waste experts, health minister, nurses, metallurgists etc from Australia who signed this petition in protest against water fluoridation? That's easily done. Of course if you wish to keep your head buried in the sand then don't bother.

No pro-fluoride consortium has conclusively proven that it is safe to consume this industrial chemical and no analyses on either side are definitive.

However, both sides are in agreement that fluoride is poisonous and mis-use and excess consumption of this industrial waste creates serious (though often insidious) health impacts on humans.

Only you (seemingly totally unqualified) appear to insist that the evidence is conclusive where you endeavour to violate the principles of sound medical and environmental ethics by describing opponents as the "lunatic fringe."

Therefore, when large numbers of citizens are in doubt, freedom of choice is paramount - a choice you insist should not be available to those who oppose you!

"You are clearly unable to submit any report verifying your claim that scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency were in agreement that silicofluorides are safe."

That was not what I claimed at all, Dickie. The information I cited was bassed the relation on silicofluorides and lead. It referred to the work by two EPA (US) scientists, Edward T. Urbansky and Michael R. Schock. A link to their research, which concluded,

"Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bio-accumulation, or reactivity of lead(0) or lead(II) compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fluorosilicates under drinking water conditions."

is here

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a770518713~db=all

You seem impressed with a petition signed by eminent scientists, but I would ask you what scientific fact has been proven by a petition of eminent? My understanding is that no scientific fact has been proven by this means, so your petition has no scientific validity of itself. What matters is the scientific evidence it is based on.

So far, the only scientific evidence for harm from water fluoridation that you have cited is one (yes one) observational study, where the author concludes:

"Further research is required to confirm or refute this observation."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w51278475h35l456/

In other words, the author states that the study is not a basis for making a judgement.

"No pro-fluoride consortium has conclusively proven that it is safe to consume this industrial chemical and no analyses on either side are definitive."

Water fluoridation is safe and beneficial by the mass of scientific evidence. Even you, Dickie, such a vocal antifluoridationist, can cite no scientifically valid evidence for water fluoridation being harmful.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s2120594.htm

The above thread is interesting for a country where all states except Queensland has fluoridated water which has been used in Australia for some 50 years.

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~fluoride/2002%20Final%20Website%20Files/fluoride_pollution_in_wa.htm

Dickie

You still seem convinced that water fluoridation is harmful, but your claims re lead and silicofluorides, and osteosarcoma in adolescent males, seem quite unfounded. So do you have other evidence that leaves you convinced? I'm sure you have plenty, so perhaps you could present the scientific claim for harm from water fluoridation which you find most convincing?

There are millions of substances in the world, but which should we fear? Irrationally fearing one may take your thoughts from many more harmful.

And you might like to look at this very favourable review of water fluoridation by the National Health And Medical Research Council:

http://nhmrc.gov.au/news/media/index.htm

Thank you for the link Fester - a link where you appear to ignore the ambiguity of the contents. The term "insufficient evidence" or "no evidence" does not mean that something is proven. There is also "insufficient evidence" to prove everyone will contract mesothelioma who inhales asbestos fibres:

"Cancer

"The evidence shows variations on either side of the effect, however
only two studies present statistically significant results,
one showing an increase and one a decrease in cancer
incidence.

Fluorosis

"There is consistent evidence that water fluoridation
results in the development of dental fluorosis, however,
the majority of dental fluorosis is not considered to be of
‘aesthetic concern’.

"Well that's some admission from your NHMRC, Fester. "Consistent evidence." And this ambiguity, promoting fluoride, is carried throughout this report!

www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/eh41syn.htm

Furthermore, you have also chosen to ignore the survey I posted, conducted recently by the Australian Health and Welfare Institute, which stated:

"Every second six-year-old child in Australia has a decayed, missing or filled baby tooth. And on average every 12-year-old has cavities in their adult teeth.

"These are the latest findings in a report by the Australian Health and Welfare Institute. The report's author, Jason Armfield, says there's been a steady increase in dental disease among children.

"JASON ARMFIELD: Since the mid 1990s amongst younger children we've seen a steady increase, year by year by year, and we're also starting to see increases now amongst older children too which is a little bit of a concern. So child oral health in Australia is actually getting worse.

Despite the massive water fluoridation programmes in Australia, children's teeth are rotting which is the most glaring evidence to date that fluoride does not prevent tooth decay.

In addition, I do believe you are flogging a dead horse Fester when you fail to correctly interpret the ambiguous and contradictory propaganda put out by government aligned agencies, propaganda which you foolishly present as scientific proof that fluoride is good for you.

Dickie

"The term "insufficient evidence" or "no evidence" does not mean that something is proven."

This is a popular line of argument with global warming skeptics. In both cases you have a question that is impossible to prove absolutely. But in each case, you test other hypotheses from most likely to least likely. In the process you either find other feasible explanations in the case of global warming, or evidence of harm in the case of water fluoridation. The more you test, the more certain you can be. If fact, the likelihood that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure is far more certain than the AGW hypothesis.

As a further example, it is logical for me to assume that you would advance the strongest arguments against water fluoridation first. The arguments you forwarded turned out to be poor ones. Now while I suspect that you have no further substantial arguments to advance against water fluoridation, I cannot prove this. But the longer you fail to present valid evidence to support your argument, the more certain I can be that this is so. It isn't ideal I agree, but when you wont show your cards then what else am I to do?

"you have also chosen to ignore the survey I posted"

This is based on the assumption that you have requested a response to your link, and is false.

"Despite the massive water fluoridation programmes in Australia, children's teeth are rotting which is the most glaring evidence to date that fluoride does not prevent tooth decay."

This reasoning is invalid, as unfluoridated Queensland has a higher decay rate than the fluoridated states. Unfortunately, water fluoridation is not a magic bullet. but it is a very cost effective way of making a difference.

"when you fail to correctly interpret the ambiguous and contradictory propaganda put out by government aligned agencies, propaganda which you foolishly present as scientific proof that fluoride is good for you."

Instead of getting bogged down with conspiracy theories, how about you present a single valid argument for water fluoridation being harmful?