"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."