Forum posts to 'Forums'

Re: A question of fluoride?

Richard — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:01:30 +1300

Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion. This topic is now closed.

Regards
Richard

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Thrash Cardiom — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:39:01 +1300

Incidently, I did look up the Warren Levy study you mention. The study concerns the overuse of fluoride and does not support removing it altogether. In fact, the most telling point is that most of the scientists involved in the study including Steven M Levy, the head of the team that conducted the study, support the continued use of fluoride in water. They do say that in areas where there is a good level of dental care that the case for fluoridation is not as strong as it once was.

"Instead of just pushing for more fluoride, we need to find the right balance," Levy says.

Scientific American, January 2008.

Dont' you just love those peer reviewed studies appearing in peer review journals?

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Thrash Cardiom — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:55:41 +1300

Am I asking too much to show just one researcher that can show a mechanism of ingested benefit.

I refer you once again to the article I have been quoting from:

Another example of downplaying the evidence of the effectiveness of water fluoridation is the argument that fluoridated water is not required to be ingested to be effective. Opponents of water fluoridation often present quotes by researchers saying that the primary effect of fluoride is topical (that is acting on the tooth surface) rather than systemic [59]. However, recent research in Australia by Singh and colleagues [74-76] has found that the pre-eruptive or systemic effect of fluoride in water supplies is at least as important in accounting for the caries preventive effect of consumption of fluoridated water as the post-eruptive or topical effect. It is common for opponents of water fluoridation to cling to old or out-of-date research while ignoring newer research that might cast doubt on their theories. Sometimes statistics and results from many decades ago are quoted to support their beliefs and statements.

Singh KA, Spencer AJ, Armfield JM. Relative effects of pre- and posteruption water fluoride on caries experience of permanent first molars. J Public Health Dent. 2003;63:11–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2003.tb03469.x. [PubMed]

Singh KA, Spencer AJ. Relative effects of pre- and post-eruption water fluoride on caries experience by surface type of permanent first molars. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004;32:435–446. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2004.00182.x. [PubMed]

Singh KA, Spencer AJ, Brennan DS. Effects of water fluoride exposure at crown completion and maturation on caries of permanent first molars. Caries Res. 2007;41:34–42. doi: 10.1159/000096103. [PubMed]

Fluoridation is nothing more them a smoke screen government uses to make it look like they care.

Conspiracy Theory Alert! Besides which, the argument you use to justify that claim isn't even remotely relevant in New Zealand.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

JimS — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:45:01 +1300

Am I asking too much to show just one researcher that can show a mechanism of ingested benefit. Even the CDC and ADA now admit(just not to the public) the primary benefit is topical. By the way none have shown a mechanism that this happens at 1ppm. The Uk Health did admit in Aug 2008 that toothpaste below 1000ppm had little measurable benefit below 1000ppm for young kids. Same for the Aussies about three months ago but they suggested 5000ppm would be much more effective byut with much greater dental fluoroisis. Featherstone JADA 2000shjows it about as well as any but FAN has the list of 20 plus.
Three court cases at state level found fluoridation without benefit and a risk for diseases such as cancer kidney disease. The findings have never been overturned on findings but jurisdiction as the FEDs control the police state power issue.
The people with the best qualifications and position to know the facts and the fraud are the EPA unions and they have clearly shown in detail the fraud commited to keep fluoridation. nteu280.org is their own union site and has the history of the fraud and science for those that care for science instead of PR.
Kumar NY Health department just came out with a new study with 1986-7 data that proves the biggest US study ever with 39,207 kids in 84 communities proves again more fluoride, more dental fluorisis but none to 1.2ppm yields about the same cavities. Just more dental fluorisis with fluoride. They refused to release the data until they could come up with a method of distorting the data in 1990. Only delayed eruption was distorted to PROVE benefit. Actually a 1 year delayed effect. That 10 page study by DR Y is on FAN.
Kumar also showed in 1996 Newburgh the Crown Jewel of Fluoridation was paste as they had more cavities then the still unfluoridated control city Kingston. Lots more dental fluorosis was the fluoridation reward as usual. That is a lose lose for those that can count.
Please3 explain the Warren Levy Iowa 2008 findings that more fluoride did not give less cavities but did give more dental flurosis. Levy said stop using the term optimal dose as it is outdated. Same for Burt Eklund dental textbook. Stop using the outdated term optimal dose.
Burt 2007 Detroit documeted near 100% cavities in 5 year old after almost 60 years of fluoridation for most biggest cities. Cavuities are increasing out of control based upon poor nutrition in the poor. Burts words not mine.
The CDC still documents bl;cks have double the dental fluorisis of whites and much uglier moderate and severe but this is not news as the very first Grand Rapids 1945 experment with Russell 1962. 40% Blacks and 19% whites but 10% was to be the halt fluoridation as failure rate so it was not mentioned to the public. In 2007 3 health professionals I know brought ethics charges against the CDC to inform blaks if this risk. The CDC refused. Informed consent should be a right but is rare in fluoridation.
Please show a researcher that documents a mechanism of ingested pre eruptive benefit.
Yoder K.M. 2007 shows when tested by ADA only a tiny % of dental profesionals unstood the new theory of fluoridation. Most are studk in the theory long disproved of long disproved pre eruptive infant benefit. Dentists are a risk from extreme ignorance for their patients who trust their knowledge and honesty completely. Yoder says will be unable to properly advise patients until they understand current scie3nce. They do no have a clue from those Fluoridation promoters I talk to. Mercury fillings at least have over 50% of US dentists refusing to install but the ADA still give total support to safety. My guess is dentists looked at the data which all shows dental office personal were at greatest risk for damage even more the patients. Most dentists are far from stupid and will protect their own self interest.
In the US with our payment system most flat refuse to treat the poor. Cosmetic repairs such as dental fluroisis has doubled in income in the last 10 years. 2o years ago dentists made less then doctors but now make much more. Cosmetic repairs and not treating the poor are the foundation for many of more income. Only 4 of over 200 in my county treat medicaid dental poor kids so 45,000 of 50,000 are underserved by their figures. For many years we had no public health dentist but now have one. Not much of a solution. Most fear being swamped so refuse to treat even one poor kid. I know because I ask them. I go to the clinics. Our first public dentist did not treat a single kid for 18 months while the office was remodeled then 6 a day with a staff of 4. Was he sleeping? He quit after 3 months of actually working then many months later the new guy got paid per head 45 dollars and treated average 30 kids a day. The other dentist did 1/5 as many. Most of the very poorest have given up and do not even try to find a dentist to treat them anymore. Fluoridation is nothing more them a smoke screen government uses to make it look like they care.
H2SiF6 damages water quality making it corrosive and lead leaching. It destroys pipes and equipment expeciall with disinfectants like chloramine which makes it up to 9 times more corrosive and leaching. Maas 2007 Coplan 2007 Masters Coplan 1996 Dartmouth proved H2SiF6 caused 41% more lead in kids blood. Lead alone means it is a loser even if it reduced cavities.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Thrash Cardiom — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:25:15 +1300

I note that the list of references included in the EPA unions includes Colquhoun whom we referred to earlier in the thread. It also includes the Chinese study which talks about hip fractures:

I refer you to the article I posted selections from earlier, When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature, in particular to the sections labelled "Fear Mongering" and "Misrepresentation of the truth. This last section actually deals with the Chinese study referred to by the EPA unions.

Misrepresentation often takes place by omission. Connett [83,84], for example, has regularly cited a study from China [85] as finding a doubling of hip fractures when people consume water with 1.5 ppm fluoride and a tripling of fractures when consuming water of greater than 4.3 ppm fluoride. This is cited as evidence of the deleterious effect of water fluoridation on the bones. What Connett does not state is that the doubling of hip fractures at 1.5ppm is not statistically significant and that the authors' find a 'U' shaped relationship between the amount of fluoride in the water and fractures, with optimally fluoridated water actually conferring a protective effect on bone fractures. Yet, handpicked and misrepresentative information may find its way from the Internet to prominent pieces in national newspapers [86] with little regard for the truth

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

JimS — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 04:09:33 +1300

Under the guise of being objective you seem the most deceptive. Most countries which do not fluoridate have decreased cavities as fast and often faster show the WHO data very clearly which can be found on the internet also. The US health department and CDC mayb e by accidnet only report that the cause of cavity decreases was fluoridation not mentioning cause was never proven, just claimed.
The Fluoride Deception is half documents released about 1996 which prove organized deception by government and industry.
The 2006 NRC is over 500 pages of admissions of research never followed up on after alarming findings were made for over a dozen diseases.
India has vast research documenting disease caused or worsened at all levels of fluoride exposure.
Are you claiming the 11 EPA science unions were tricked by the internet or have they been consistant that fraud and deception has caused management to ignore the risks and exagerate any ingested benefit. Thrash ,I have lost trust in your ability to even get the siomple things straight. Dentists have a severe conflict of interest they do not disclose and in the US are not qualified to speak outside the oral cavity as a dentist. They can give their personal opinion all they want. The ADA has clearly in court claimed their opinions are just that and do not give them any legal risk no matter the safety claim. Yes on fluoridation also.
Please feel free to cite one chronic study on H2SiF6 for health or safety as not one exists and almost all fluoridation is w3ith this smokestack chemical waste. The iaomt@org give real science on toxic issues like fluoride and mercury which most dentists ignore. They cite real science.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Thrash Cardiom — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:49:02 +1300

Another extract from the article:

The major public health implications of the spread of misinformation regarding water fluoridation on the Internet is that this information finds its way into local anti-fluoride campaign materials which are used to influence councils who ultimately are required to make decisions on water fluoridation implementation. The standard procedure for making council decisions on matters outside of the expertise of council members is to invite comment from representatives of different sides of the issue. Councillors are presented with conflicting information of which they are not qualified to judge, and under public pressure by a small number of committed activists, may decide to maintain the status quo which means to not introduce water fluoridation. Other councillors may decide to carry out their own research and may turn to the Internet which is the primary source of misinformation regarding the fluoridation of water. One councillor from Northern NSW has quipped that "It took five minutes of research to confirm my opinion about fluoride" [34].

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Thrash Cardiom — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:15:58 +1300

Statements regarding the scientific controversy surrounding water fluoridation are generally regarded as artefacts of antifluoridationist activity, with actual scientific debate over water fluoridation being resolved decades ago. Almost all major dental and health organisations either support water fluoridation or have found no association between it and adverse health effects [20]. Nonetheless, propagating the idea of an ongoing scientific debate gives the illusion of scientific uncertainty and is a favoured tactic of water fluoridation opponents..

Interestingly this is exactly the same tactic used by creationists and intelligent design advocates against evolution.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Thrash Cardiom — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:11:39 +1300

Here is an interesting article about the way anti-fluoridation activists source and use information in their campaign:

Discussion
Water fluoridation opponents employ multiple techniques to try and undermine the scientifically established effectiveness of water fluoridation. The materials they use are often based on Internet resources or published books that present a highly misleading picture of water fluoridation. These materials are used to sway public and political opinion to the detriment of public health. Despite an extensive body of literature, both studies and results within studies are often selectively reported, giving a biased portrayal of water fluoridation effectiveness. Positive findings are downplayed or trivialised and the population implications of these findings misinterpreted. Ecological comparisons are sometimes used to support spurious conclusions. Opponents of water fluoridation frequently repeat that water fluoridation is associated with adverse health effects and studies are selectively picked from the extensive literature to convey only claimed adverse findings related to water fluoridation. Techniques such as "the big lie" and innuendo are used to associate water fluoridation with health and environmental disasters, without factual support. Half-truths are presented, fallacious statements reiterated, and attempts are made to bamboozle the public with a large list of claims and quotes often with little scientific basis. Ultimately, attempts are made to discredit and slander scientists and various health organisations that support water fluoridation.

When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature
Jason M Armfield

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=1245025

EDIT: I strongly recommend CHB Councillors read this article before voting on this issue.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Thrash Cardiom — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:59:55 +1300

Sorry. As 'CMC' says, this just screams conspiracy theory.

The Fluoride Deception, by Christopher Bryson, deserves credit for a catchy title but the story he tells ultimately lacks credibility. The book begins as an informative historical expose of the occupational and environmental impact of fluoride use in industry in the 20th century. However Bryson then commits his own “deception” regarding risks and benefits of water fluoridation. He is either scientifically unsophisticated or willingly allowing his politics to trump science. Either way, the last half of the book confuses types of fluoride compounds after cautioning the reader against doing so, carelessly equates the dangers of high dose exposure to the level of fluoride added to water, misquotes scientific articles, and relies on references by authors with questionable credentials, equating opinion to factual evidence. Individuals express their viewpoints at Congressional Hearings, but such testimonials cannot be taken as fact simply because someone said it was so. Bryson presents such testimonials as truth, but there is a large difference between scientific evidence and personal opinion. It is not clear that he understands the difference.

http://fluorideinfo.com/articles3.html#The%20Fluoride%20Deception

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

JimS — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:05:22 +1300

Please read The Fluoride Deception by Bryson if you have any real concern to understand the dynamics of who wanted fluoridatrion. It really had nothing to do with dental caries decline. The H.T. Dean 21 city study actually showed the opposite if all the data was looked at but5 it was hidden. Andrew Mellon was the driving force with the money from his Alcoa Aluminum and 8 other polluting industries. Then the AEC with huge requirements of fluoride to produce the first nukes was given the right legally in secret to rewrite studies to make JADA and JAMA studies read favorable when the opposite was true. One study was from a uranium facility in Cleveland Ohio called Harshaw. Only blacks were allowed in the high exposure areas and most lost their teeth and died unhealthy and young. The altered report instead showed great robust health and less cavities which might be the only truth as they did have almost no teeth. The insurance group for the military contractors were also allowed to alter data to protect against payouts. The once secret data is in Bryson book for those who actually care about the facts. The Mid 90's under cCllinton average payouts of 400,000 were paid out to those that were plutonium injected without their knowledge. Some with brain cancer were even give lethal doses for study of death but most were just tested for kidney damage with lesser doses. These were under the same AEC toxicologist that designed the first fluoride experments for data and collected tissue and blood samples for the military from the civilian childten and plancenta tissue also. This is Harold Hodge who also helped LSD radioactive taging for people tested without their knowledge. He was also the public spokesman for safety of fluoridation. You can watch his videos on FAN .
Really what reason do you think the EPA science unions starting detailing and documenting fraud and altered documents when the findings of the 1983 surgeons generals report was altered to say the opposite of the 7-2 finding that no data showed even 2.4ppm safe. The experts on the panel were not able to get a single dental journal to publish the fraud they documented. This was the basis of the 1986 29 page lawsuit the Federal courts refused to. This is repeatly a police state power issue not science. nteu280.org shows what they as professionals are willing to state publicly. Fraud, Yes outright fraud. Dr. Bob Carton said this loud and often in 1985 and still does.11 EPA uunions inin 2005 asked congress to halt fluoridation because ingested fluorides have little benefit and cancer risks from several studies human and rat.
The UK York Review showed the 3200 studies they review had not one single high quality class A study that was bias unlikely. This is a mahjor problem if science is the issue. The early studies were not close to real science as the was no stastical controls and variables were not controlled. As the studies progressed they altered the groups looked at. The controls were eliminated especially when they decreased cavities as greatly. The government considered this a high priority to protect fluoridation. The health services have this as a rule that can not be violated. They are exactly like the military in that they follow orders and it is not about looking at data as they just repeat simplistic talking points as written in stone. The many I have talked to rarely read new studies and most do not know their backside from a hole in the grould. They are scary ignorant and most could care less. They just repeat from their comic book version of facts. Most dentists stay far away from current studies as they are smart enough to know they make them look incorrect. So they just recite they professional caring and strong beliefs while staying away from all the current peer review data showing them very off base. Read the NoFl article which gives many current peer reviewed studies. Also Caring just look at the NoFl most recent and ingested fluorides have no benefit. No measurable benefit so it is really counter productive to at the very least give half the kids defective hypominerized enamel.
Fluoride is more toxic then lead yet legally we can have 267 times fluoride then lead in the US. We usually only put 66 times in or 1000ppb. The max allowed for lead in the US is 15ppb and the Merck manual which was first published about 1850 shows lead less toxic then fluoride
Also fluorine is the most electro negative and most reactive of elements and is cumulative for life with about half retained in bones . It is excellent for killing things by damaging hydrogen bonds and destroying enzymes at very low doses. This is why it is effective rat poison and insecticide by destroying enzymes as the JADA and JAMA both showed in peer reviewed articles before 1950 when the health department stated the new policy. They prior to that showed 1ppm fluoride a danger to health and the AWWA showed above .1ppm enough to damage teeth with dental fluorisis just like the H.T, Dean data did. This was all ignored with the new truth if anyone wanted part of hyuge research funding for proof of benefit. They created new truths.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Caring Community Member — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:04:55 +1300

As a lay person it is bewildering the amount of data out there. I use the term "data" instead of "information" because as you know numbers can be creatively used to support any point of view.

There are couple of questions I keep asking myself. If Fluoride is such a terrible chemical, even in tiny amounts, why do the anti Fluoride activists not lobby for it's complete removal from all drinking water supplies? Central Hawkes Bay has Fluoride naturally occurring at .3ppm. The New Zealand Dental Association and the District Health Board recommends the optimum therapeutic ideal level is between .7ppm and 1ppm. The Council currently adds Fluoride to bring the level to 1ppm. The arguments seem to be about rights i.e. does someone have the right to add something to my drinking water? In my opinion if there is a benefit to me and my family's heath with no proven side effects, then no problem.

I have heard some activists imply this is driven by some sort of corporate conspiracy or government turning a blind eye to waste dumping. I'm sorry but I find this "X Files" thinking too far fetched. I was at the local meeting. John Jukes spoke for the anti Fluoride group and David Marshall and Nick Jones for the pro Fluoride. An earlier post referred to David and Nick as the "establishment". Another conspiracy term. I had never meet them but I took the time to learn their names and talk to them, as I have done with John. David is the Principle Dental Officer for Hawkes Bay and Nick is the Medical Officer of Health. These men are not faceless bloggers from the other side of the world, they are members of our Hawkes Bay community, they deal with health issues every day, they have studied the research and I can see no reason whatsoever they would sanction any course of action that puts us in danger.

My second question relates to all the statements about other countries, especially European ones, who have stopped, or never added Fluoride to water. Could it be (I cannot find any info on it) that the natural Fluoride levels in their water are close to, or exceed the recommended 1ppm? If this is the case, of course they wouldn't add any Fluoride, and neither would we if our natural levels were higher. As for holding the Europeans up as examples of how life should be lived. Why do they know more about healthy lifestyles than New Zealanders? For example. We have a very charming exchange student at the College from a Western European country. She told me that the high school students in her country are allowed to smoke in school! We're not going to follow that example either.

As I said I am a lay person. I have an open mind but I also trust that our educated health officials are not wanting to harm us. Yes look into all the data (until you go cross-eyed), but be realistic.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Youth & Unemployment in CHB

Richard — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:45:14 +1300

NZ Herald article on youth unemployment in Otorohanga. Well worth a read!

Otorohanga's success story

One of New Zealand's smallest local bodies, Otorohanga, claims one of the biggest honours any community could seek in a world recession - zero youth unemployment.

The small King Country district (population 9500) has maintained zero registered unemployment of people under age 25 since November 2006.

Thanks to a unique apprentice support system and 10 other youth initiatives, it also claims a 75 per cent reduction in the number of youths caught by police in the two years after the new initiatives began in 2005.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/small-business/news/article.cfm?c_id=85&objectid=10575842

Posted to: Youth & Unemployment in CHB Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

NoFl — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:22:04 +1300

This news just in today from New York -

JADA Study Proves Fluoridation is Money down the Drain

New York – September 29, 2009 -- Children’s cavity rates are similar whether water is fluoridated or not, according to data published in the July 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association by dentist J.V. Kumar of the NY State Health Department (1).

In 2008, New York City spent approximately $24 million on water fluoridation ($5 million on fluoride chemicals)(1a). In 2010, NYC’s fluoride chemicals will cost $9 million (1b).

Fluoride in water at “optimal” levels (0.7 – 1.2 mg/L) is supposed to reduce tooth decay without creating excessive fluorosis (fluoride-discolored and/or damaged teeth). Yet cavities are rampant in NY’s fluoridated populations (1c).

Attempting to prove that fluorosed teeth have fewer cavities, Kumar uses 1986-1987 National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) data which, upon analysis, shows that 7- to 17-year-olds have similar cavity rates in their permanent teeth whether their water supply is fluoridated or not (Table 1).

In 1990, using the same NIDR data, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis published equally surprising results in a peer-reviewed journal. He concluded, “No statistically significant differences were found in the decay rates of permanent teeth or the percentages of decay-free children in the F [fluoridated], NF [non-fluoridated], and PF [partially fluoridated] areas.” (2).

Kumar divided children into four groups based on their community’s water fluoride levels:

Less than 0.3 mg/L where 55.5% had cavities
From 0.3 to 0.7 mg/L where 54.6% had cavities
Optimal 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L where 54.4% had cavities
Over 1.2 mg/L where 56.4% had cavities

“Dr. Kumar’s published data exposes more evidence that fluoridation doesn’t reduce tooth decay,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

“It’s criminal to waste taxpayers’ money on fluoridation, while exposing entire populations unnecessarily to fluoride’s health risks, especially when local and state governments are attempting to balance budgets by cutting essential services,” says Beeber.

Analysis of Kumar’s data: http://tinyurl.com/MoneyDownTheDrain (and below)

More information about fluoride and tooth decay:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/fluoridation.html#surveys

References:

1) “The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren,” Kumar & Iida Journal of the American Dental Association, July 2009
(Table 1)

1a) http://www.scribd.com/doc/18235930/NYC-Fluoridation-Costs-2008-Feb-2-2009-Letter-Page-1

1b) http://www.council.nyc.gov/html/budget/PDFs/fy_10_exec_budget_dept_enviro_protection.pdf

1c) http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/fluoridationfailsnewyork.htm
2) Fluoride: Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research
April 1990 (Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 55-67) “Water Fluoridation & Tooth Decay: Results from the 1986-1987 National Survey of US Schoolchildren,” by John A. Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D.

Contact: Paul Beeber, Esq nyscof@aol.com
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.FluorideAction.net

SOURCE: NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF KUMAR'S DATA

Kumar’s data: 6,720 children came from communities with water fluoride levels less than 0.3 mg/L

54.9% of the 3,921 children without fluorosis had tooth decay = 2,153
60.1% of 1,818 children with questionable fluorosis had tooth decay = 1,093
49.3% of 981 with fluorosis present had cavities = 484

TOTAL 6,720 TOTAL WITH CAVITIES 3,730

3,730 is 55.5% of 6,720 Therefore, 55.5% had cavities.

***

1,979 children tested lived in communities with from 0.3 to 0.7 mg/L Fluoride

54.7% of 1,084 children with normal teeth have cavities = 593
59% of 507 children with questionable fluorosis have cavities = 299
48.4% of 388 children with fluorosis present had cavities = 188

TOTAL 1,979 TOTAL WITH CAVITIES 1,080

1,080 is 54.6% of 1,979. Therefore, 54.6% of children living in 0.3 to 0.7 mg/L fluoridated communities have tooth decay

***

7,177 lived in optimally fluoridated areas (0.7 – 1.2 mg/L)

54.1% of the 2875 children without fluorosis had tooth decay = 1,555
53.8% 2493 children with questionable fluorosis had tooth decay = 1,341
55.7% of 1809 with fluorosis present had cavities = 1,008

TOTAL 7,177 TOTAL WITH CAVITIES 3,904

3914 is 54.4% of 7177. Therefore 54.4% of children living in optimally fluoridated areas had cavities

***
813 children living in areas with greater than 1.2 mg/L Fluoride in their water

52.3% of 248 children with normal teeth had cavities = 130
64.1% of 236 children with questionable fluorosis had cavities = 151
54% of 329 children with fluorosis had cavities = 178
TOTAL 813 TOTAL WITH CAVITIES 459

56.4% of 813 children is 459 . Therefore 56.4% of children living in areas with more than 1.2 mg/L fluoride in the water have cavities.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Thrash Cardiom — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:40:52 +1300

Excerpt of last paragraph of the article:

Colquhoun's plea for examining and discussing new and old evidence in a scholarly debate with proponents of fluoridation sounds good, but is frustratingly difficult in practice. Colquhoun, Diesendorf and their colleagues are unequivocally unwilling to accept the validity of any of the hundreds of published studies on the effectiveness of community water fluoridation because the communities have not been selected randomly. In other words, they will accept only studies in which a randomly selected community fluoridated its water (whether it wants to or not) and be paired with a randomly selected control community. The purity of random selection sounds great, but it is unfeasible when it comes to selecting sites for the implementation and evaluation of water fluoridation. Colquhoun and his colleagues do not engage in scholarly debate, but rather engage in polemical arguments.

http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/newbrun.html

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Thrash Cardiom — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:46:47 +1300

I did a search on John Colqhoun and the first return wasn't particularly flattering for his findings:

Colquhoun cites several studies, including his own findings [2,3], which purportedly show that water fluoridation has no significant beneficial effect in reducing caries prevalence. When comparisons are made between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in a properly designed research study, examiners are standardized and calibrated to agreed-upon criteria for diagnosis. However, Colquhoun's data were not recorded for this purpose, as he simply took from school dental clinics the treatment records, in which caries diagnoses were not standardized. The examined children were treated by different school dental nurses, who were untrained in epidemiological survey methods, not standardized in their interpretation of diagnostic criteria, and not calibrated to an expert examiner in their examining techniques. The examiners were likely to have had their own criteria for what constituted a cavity and what teeth required restorative care. Worse still, Colquhoun made no effort to ensure that the children actually resided in either the fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, but analyzed the data simply on the basis of the district in which the school was located, not where the child lived. Subsequently, it was shown "that 38 percent of the 12-13 year-old children who attended school in Onehunga, the low social class area described by Colquhoun [2], actually lived in high social rank areas in Auckland, districts that received fluoridated drinking water. This confounding of residence and fluoride histories produced serious misclassifications and severely compromised Colquhoun's data, and hence his conclusions" [13].

http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/newbrun.html

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

JimS — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:06:52 +1300

Auckland dismissed John Colqhoun DDS in the late 80's after he discoved a treasure trove of government data documenting no bnefit of fluoridation and proving the slightly better teeth were from non fluoridated areas. By selectively choosing area to be compared the result is determined as income is the main factor. It is far more complex then that alone but nutrition,home care like brushing and no nap bottles or sipply cups with sugar drinks or even milk after 10 months. And of cource a good dental professional which New Zealand does a far better job of then the US. Dr. Colqhoun in his remaining years after dismissal did constant battle to reverse the harm fluoridation does. The data is out there just not passed on to the dental community or the public.
I do not believe but a small handful of dentists at the upper control levels actually see the big picture of how much destruction is done to enamel alone as in the US most of this is in the mi
nority and very poor which it is rare dentists treat. It is left to public health which not all counties have or like in my county 4 of over 200 treat the poor kids accepting medicaid kids payment. Many sign up but then refuse to treat a single child.
See http://www.nteu280.org which is the union EPA headquarters which shows the history of reporting the fluoridation fraud.
They reported this to management who flat refused to disuss as they were part of the altered documents problem. A lawsuit was filed in 1986 which the Federal courts refused to hear as they look at this as a police state power issue for greater good. No proof of benefit needed just the claim. Congress has been asked many times to halt fluoridation with no response but this has grown from just one union in 1986 to 11 in 2005 and 19 in 2008. This is major as they also cite the correct goal is ZERO exactly like arsenic and lead which are also contained in the H2SiF6. Maas 2007 Coplan 2007 both show bench testing proving lead leaching from H2SiF6 and up to 9 times more destructive with disinfectant. Maas had also field tested over 150,000 homes for lead under EPA contract proving lead leaching. Washington DC in 2000 changed disinfectants and had the worst lead problem in US for almost 3 years in which they never told the public. The max allowed is 15ppb but levels were hundreds and even thousands of times over the limit. This was not corrected until 2003. The CDC and EPA did assist in a massive cover up of the true damage caused. They instead blamed lead supply lines to 25,000 homes as the sole cause but never warend the other 100,000 that levels were just as high with out the lead supplies. The 100 million repair of lead supplies only made the problem worse as they had been warned but did not follow expert advise. Finally in 2003 standard corrosion control chemicals were used whjich controlled the issue. Ortophosphate, polyphosphate and tri phosphate are very standard with corrosion issues. Low Ph or H2SiF6 cause the problem. Instead of doing the cure they blamed only lead pipes as a scape goat. Marc Edwards of Virginia Tech as the top corrosion expertr said tens of billions of damage to pipes and homes from water and mildue damage could be caused by this combination with H2SiF6. It is well documented to destroy plant equipment ,pipes, pumps, guages,and everything it touches.
No government agency has ever chronic tested H2SiF6 for health and benefit data but still dentists claim thousands of studieswhere not one exists on the product used. Charles Fox only admitted this when under oath to congress in 2000 for the EPA management. You can read the testestomony at keepers of the well at every word is there from the EPA, CDC ,FDA, NSA and the long list.
They claimed the doctors would be warned of risks as the 1993 and 2003 gave a long list of unusually susceptable risk groups to fluorideation. This has not happened. Look up the 1993 US tox profile and see seniors, pregnate women and fetus, healrt patients, kidney patients, those low on calcium, magnesium, vit C and low protein are all in the high risk group. Not a single health department will mention this and only three of 50 will even admit no fluoridated water for infant formula.
This is aa CDC ,ADA policy but they refuse to inform the public. The FDA also said in 2006 no claim of benefit can be made of botled fluoride water for kids under 12 months. But then they refused to halt those claims by nursery water and baby water.
Look up Colquhoun Auckland for the home grown story of fraud and deception and being fired for honesty.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Grai — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:52:42 +1300

Thank you NoFl for your coolheaded, sound, and helpful messages. It is hard to stay unemotional on such a serious issue. Your messages have been very helpful to me, cheers, Grai

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Shelley — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:59:27 +1300

Thank you to Caring Community Member, Thrash Cardiom, Grai, NoFl, and JimS for your new posts. Council has opened this forum to hear all views about fluoridating water supplies - please remember, Council has a neutral stance on this subject. It is great to see the forum take on a life of its own where peers can and are debating the issue at hand. Councillors will be given all comments from this forum to consider before making their decision about whether or not to continue fluoridating Waipukurau's water supply. To all contributors: please keep the tone of any comments respectful to all. Regards, Shelley Burne-Field, Communications,CHB District Council.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

NoFl — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:44:19 +1300

But that doesn't make mass medication of any type right - does it?

The NZ Bill of Rights, which unfortunately doesn't appear to be worth the paper it is printed on, states -

1. Life and Security of the Person
You have the right not to be:
- Deprived of life;
- Subjected to torture, cruel treatment or punishment;
- Subjected to medical or scientific experimentation.
- You have the right to refuse medical treatment.

Well unfortunately for thousands of New Zealanders the "right to refuse medical treatment" is beyond them unless they go without water altogether or buy bottled water which may or may not be fluoridated anyway.
Fluoride is not included on nutrition labelling because it has none and yet it is found in most foodstuffs we consume. Another food safety faux pas as many commentators firmly believe we are being over-fluoridated.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Thrash Cardiom — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:21:09 +1300

Mass medicication by itself isn't a good enough argument as there are many instances where governments, including the NZ one, quite happily mass medicate with nary a peep from the public.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

NoFl — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:18:00 +1300

I agree with some of the commentators assertions that too much information is not enough. But when the issue was debated in the New Plymouth District in 2001 thats exactly what came about at the public forums. The pro fluoride zealots had all the money (most of it tax/ratepayers), so called experts and information to support fluoride and the anti brigade basically relied on the passion of one woman with no money and no expertise to fight the battle.
So that is why New Zealanders such as myself involve ourselves with the fluoride issue and subsequently provide the best and most up-to date info to the best of our ability. I posted the 50 Reasons not to Fluoridate - one of those reasons should be sufficient to cease all fluoridation in NZ.
To keep it simple people need to ask themselves -
if Fluoride is as good as it is touted to be (remembering there is no scientific evidence to prove it's safety) why isn't all the drinking water supplies in the world fluoridated?
Why isn't Christchurch, Inglewood and many, many other districts, cities and towns in NZ fluoridated? What do they know that we dont? Dont we all live in the same land and have our health and safety looked after by the same organisation ie Ministry of Health.
How come most of the world refuses to fluoridate their drinking water supply if the so-called health advantages are there?
Most of them dont do it because their governments do not want to mass medicate.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Grai — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:00:15 +1300

I was very pleased to hear a very convincing publicly stated case against Fluroridation by one of our long time local dentists John Jukes both in the local Mail newspaper and in person at the council organised information evening. I have heard nothing from the other local dentists. Maybe it just hasn't registered.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Thrash Cardiom — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:29:48 +1300

"Your total ignorance on the subject does not protect yourself or anyone else"

I'm well aware of why iodine is required, thank you. Your rudeness does you no favours.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

JimS — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:24:50 +1300

Iodine actually has a very real proven need and a lack of causes disease such as thyroid malfunction . This is documented from about 1853. Fluori8de is the most electro negative of all elements and the most reactive. It is well documented to decrease iodine levels by winning the battle for the bonding site. The NRC 1986 500 plus pages address this with several studies with proof .7mg dose can reduce thyroid function when a person is already low on iodine function. Inland areas have this as a common issue. Both of my grandmothers had goiter surgery . Michigan is in what was called the goiter belt before iodine was added to salt. Your total ignorance on the subject does not protect yourself or anyone else. The average daily intake is close to about 3mg but sometimes much higher. Intakes have been rising fast as foods now have much more fluoride then decades ago because of many fluoride pesticides and fumigants and herbicides and fluoridated water used in most food processing now. Most dentists have never read any of this data but just simplistic talking points ignoring anything but teeth. Then they even get that all wrong if you look at the last 2 decades of research.
Look up a paper by John Colquhoun DDS the principal fluoridation promoter for years that became aware of all the new science around the world when he did a world tour talking to top scientists. They shared with him the new studies were not showing benefit so they were not publishing them. When he got home he went through the old data and discovered they had known all along fluoridation had no benefit. The data was clearly marked to not release. When he deceided he had to go public with the truth he was fired. Is there anything I could answer that would have the slightest chance of changing your mind. Usually there is not but some just need time to get the point. Anyone can get it if they just read some data now force feed by either side.
This is a group think thing for most dentists who wish the public no ill will. They aggressively keep their belief by refusing to look at the data

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Thrash Cardiom — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:10:41 +1300

I don't think those people posting huge screeds of information are helping their case as most people will simply skim or completely skip those overly long posts. Whatever happened to making a few succinct points and providing links to reference material.

Personally I don't mind fluoride in my water. It kind of goes with all the other additives that go in to it which don't get complained about.

People whine about mass medication but what is the difference between fluoride and the requirement for bakers to use iodised salt - I see no complaints about that.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Caring Community Member — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:59:41 +1300

Wow. Feel a little bit intimidated surrounded by posts from activists from the United States. Are we meant to be cutting and pasting content from anti fluoride websites or discussing the issue as Waipukurau, Central Hawkes Bay, residents?

I must take exception to the implication that Dentists lie and are motivated by the money they can make from cosmetic procedures. Our 3 local dentists all care deeply about the health of their patients and for that matter of all those in our community. Their advice to us is what they sincerely believe to be in the best interests of all Waipukurau people.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

JimS — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:33:29 +1300

Ignored is the fact the old theory of ingested benefit to pre eruptiove teeth is firmly disporoved. Even the ADA in weak moments of reality admitsthe predominate benefit is topical not ingested. The CDC in a 1999 MMWR mentioned this but then went on to claim fluoridation one of the top 10 public health policies. They offered no data to prove the claim. Canada had tio admit they could find no data to support this claim they often make also.
For those that choose to read the studies there are 20 that clearly document pre eruptive ingested is not large and not even a measurable benefit. It is just the foundation a a belief they refuse to stop believing. Dentists and health departments are so very smart they refuse to actually debate the science as they are not that stupid to show up with a empty quiver. One hundred endorsements is not scioence but a display of power.
Only a fool could actually read Featherstone 2000 JADA and then claim ingested fluorides have benefit. There are 20 that show this science of maybe topical benefit but no proof of ingested. Please show the mechanism of ingested benefit and then the studies showing topical mechanism at 1ppm. The ones I read show it is even questionable any benefit topical below 1ppm. The UK said that in Aug 2008 and Austrailia earlier this year for young kids and toothpaste.
Warren Levy Iowa is the most recent documenting questionable ingested benefit which no proof of decreased cavities with increased dose. They said the term optimal dose.
is outdated and should not be used. Same for the most recent dental text book by Burt and Eklund.
Please show research proving a ingested benefit pre eruptive and topical benefit at 1ppm. Surely tooth fairy dust has something to do with this magic. So dentists talk big as long as they do not actually have to debate science. Fluoride overdose is rampant and Burt 2007 Detroit documents cavity increases out of control in 50 plus year fluoridated inner cities in all of the US. Poor is the reason with lousey nutrition and not a dentist who cares enough to treat the poor. 80% of the problems are in 25% of the kids and fluoridation is the smoke and mirros to cover up the lie dentists actually care about the poor. In the US the great majority flat refuse to treat the poor. A small number do almost all the treatment and there are public health in some areas but usually under staffed. Burt 2007 Detroit documents nutriton, few dentists and poor home care is the problem.Most of the kids are fluoride toxic with dental fluorisis to prove this for life. The bottle water without fluoride is a scam as the rich kids with great teeth drink that. In every state about 80% rich kids have good or excellent teeth. 50-55% for the poor with no difference if fluoridated or not. By the was dentists have a huge conflict of interest as cosmetic repairs have double incomes for that work in just 10 years. Dental fluroisis ugly damage is the rich cream dentists skim off the top from our misfortune to be fluoridated.
The WHO data and the CDC data prove the issue to anyone except those that benefit at others suffering. The Dr Osmunson video shows the data in a five minute video.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Caring Community Member — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:47:50 +1300

Fluoride occurs naturally in our water. Water Fluoridation is simply altering the Fluoride to an optimum therapeutic level. Locally the Fluoride level is .3ppm which gives no benefit. Sea water is 1ppm.
Pro Fluoride health professionals and anti-Fluoride activists will never agree. Both sides are ardent in their beliefs. In an ideal world we wouldn't be adding anything to our water supply but we don't live in ideal world. Water Fluoridation at 1ppm gives benefit to all. As a community we need to care for those who can't care for themselves.
To the few who object on the matter of choice. Yes you do have a choice. Install a filter that removes all additives.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

JimS — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 01:02:10 +1200

To Brett Way-- The very simple fact is not one chronic safety and benefit study resulting in data has ever been done on the actual fluoride compound used for almost all fluoridation. To claim thousands of studies is deceptive at best. A total lie more likely. This has been admitted several times but only under questioning under threat of punishment for lying. Charles Fox had to tell the truth under questioning in the 2000 Calvert congressional investigations. He did in writing admit not one study of the H2SiF6 for either health or benefit in a chronhjic study witrh data. Please produce one study as no government is aware it exists. Many claim thousands of studies but this is on purified sodium fluoride in double distilled deionized water which has almost no relationship to the complex nature of different minerals and other chemicals in different waters. Also about 40 different chemicals from a far greater number of suppliers with very different behaviors in each water plant.Even the PH and location of injectors and sequence of each step has huge differences in outcomes. The H2SiF6 or Na2SiF6 AWWA b703-06

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

NoFl — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:22:39 +1200

The lack of action by Government, both local and central, to remove fluoride from our drinking supplies has become bewildering. Conspiracy theorists have their reasoning but it does make one wonder who is paying who, or alternatively, who wont be paid if they dont. The fact that dentists promote fluoridation appears to contradict their very existence - perhaps their "research" funding will dry up if they dont.
The point that is most mystifying is that parts of NZ do not fluoridate - others do (unfortunately). In some cases such as the New Plymouth District, some towns are exempted. Why is this? In some cases, like this consultation, democracy truely takes its course and "binding" referendums have allowed the various communities to say NO.

The other bad case scenario is that the fact that NZ no longer produces enough fluoride (thats a good thing) to meet its apparent needs so in our leaders wisdom we now import other countries toxic waste to take care of the shortfall - ludicrous.

Most civilised countries throughout the world do not fluoridate and some of these are listed below - Germany's first reasoning says it all.

It would appear that fluoride has been forced upon us by the good ol USA - just like Agent Orange, nuclear tests, aspartame etc. Its time we told the Yanks to stick their toxic waste where the sun don't shine.

May 1, 2008
Countries That Do Not Fluoridate Water

Many countries oppose water fluoridation. In 2000, government authorities from various countries were asked if they fluoridated their water and if not, why. Several countries (Portugal, Romania, Denmark, Austria, and China) simply stated that their water was not fluoridated without giving any reasons.
Other countries that did not fluoridate provided the following reasons:

The Netherlands: opposed to putting medical additives into the water.

Belgium: opposed to putting medical additives into the water.

Hungary: ran into technical problems that made fluoridation seem unreasonable.

Switzerland: uses fluoridated salt instead but preserve choice since people can buy non-fluoridated salt. [Note: The cost of fluoridating salt is borne by the manufacturer rather than by municipalities.]

Luxembourg: “drinking water isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment. . . people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets”

Sweden: “Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden due to repeal in 1971 of the Drinking Water Fluoridation Act issued in 1962. . . . New scientific documentation or changes in the dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the commission have not been shown.”

Norway: “we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated. It was therefore up to each individual to decide whether to use fluoride tablets, toothpaste or mouthwash.”

Finland: has no fluoridation because “there are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.” The Finnish Dentists’ Association recommends the use of fluoride pills.

Japan: “there is no need to supply fluoridated water to ALL users because
(1) the impacts of fluoridated water on human health depends on each human being so that inappropriate application may cause health problems of vulnerable people, and
(2) there is other ways for the purpose of dental health care, such as direct F-coating on teeth and using fluoridated dental paste and these ways should be applied at one’s free will.”

France: “Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations.” (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l’Environment, August25, 2000). France does have fluoridated salt as a choice.

Czech Republic: Stopped fluoridation in 1989 because it was
(1) uneconomical since “only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking water is used as such,”
(2) “unecological,”
(3) “unethical (forced medication),”
(4) it “disregards actual individual intake and requirements”.

India: Rather than putting fluoride into the water, India is removing “the fluoride that pollutes the water naturally. . .we know that fluoride is injurious to health.” Furthermore, it is mandated that toothpaste cartons indicate the fluoride content and state that “children below 4 years of age should not use fluoridated toothpaste as fluoride is injurious to health.”
India has a problem with fluorosis in 17 of the 32 states leading the government to recommend that individuals not use fluoridated toothpaste.

Germany: stopped all fluoridation and provided the most extensive reasons for that action via a position statement issued by the DVGW (German Technical and Scientific Association for Gas and Water). As the letter indicated, “The information is dated 1992, but we still fully agree with this statement.” The DVGW sets technical standards that are used in the operation of water systems in Germany and the European Union. The following are quotes from the DVGW position statement.
(1) “It is not the task of water supply companies to add substances to drinking water intended as prophylactics against illness not caused by drinking water.”
(2) “Caries is not the manifestation of fluoride deficiency, but is the result of a generally false nutrition and inefficient dental hygiene. Unwholesome habits resulting in caries are not eliminated by the fluoridation of drinking water; on the contrary, they are promoted.”
(3) “The suggested optimal fluoride concentration of 1 mg per litre is very close to the dose with which long term detrimental effects in people cannot be excluded. . . the limit value in drinking water cannot be justified in view of different habits and therefore differing consumption of drinking water and the uncontrolled intake of fluorides from other sources. The safety of a lifelong accumulation of fluoride in the human body as a result of increased intake is disputed in medical science throughout the world.”
(4) “More than 99 per cent [of fluoride contained in drinking water] would be discharged with waste water directly into the environment. This additional fluoride emission into waters is unacceptable for ecological reasons.”
(5) “The consumer cannot avoid fluoridated drinking water made available by public water supply. This mandatory intake of fluoride violates the basic right to bodily freedom from injury . . . provided by the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany.”
(6) “Fluoride intake for the prevention of caries is more effective with specific measures taken by the individual than by fluoridation of drinking water.”
(7) “An assessment of risks vs. benefits involving both the health aspects and ecological consequences justifies DVGW’s rejection of the fluoridation of drinking water.”

Most of these countries without water fluoridation rank well above the United States in terms of low infant mortality rates and long life expectancies—commonly used benchmarks for the overall health of a country’s citizens.

The estimated 2008 data from the CIA World Factbook ranks the USA in 47th place on life expectancy (well behind Japan, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Austria, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, Belgium, and Finland), and in 43rd place on infant mortality rate (behind Portugal, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Spain, Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Finland, France, Japan, and Sweden).
Hence, it is difficult to argue that these countries are uninformed on health matters.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

JimS — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:15:05 +1200

10 Misconceptions--Upon reading the official list I am shocked at the poor quality and deception in every claim. Yes they do follow policy but ignore most recent science. Pizzo Review 2007 most recent 5 years quality data and shows cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. Also social inequities are not lessened with fluoridation. It really just does not have a mechanism for ingested benefit. Any con man can create data by careful selection of the study groups as huge differences do exist in cities but not because of fluoride.
The Heavy metals story is 100% BS as the natural rockis used to produce phosphate fertilizer and the 3.5% fluoride is a smokestack toxic waste product that the EPA ordered scrubbers installed in 1970. From 1957-1968 airborne fluorides had more lawsuits for damage then all the rest of the 20 combined. It was evil stuff and most settlements were sealed to hide the huge awards from the courts and public. Unaltered this toxic waste is put in the water unpurified. AWWA b703-06 has a specification sheet detailing about 20 contaminates with arsenic and lead at the top but many also radiaoactive decay products. The rock contains about 200ppm uranium and was the source of up to 75% of all Yellowcake uranium for nukes and reactors. Florida had 7 recovery units and Lousiana 2 but the last one closed in 1998 say AEC mine records. The many tons of uranium is just left in all the products now as they do not do the expensive solvent extraction process. This is unmentioned to the publicand denied but it is there unmentioned just like it is in the product.
The FDA has never found a need for fluoride and removed it from the list of nutients or probable nutrients in 1978 after losing 3 lawsuit. It is regulated as a contaminate as it legally has no justification legally as a medicine but they claim it treats a disease of caries. By law the FDA says anothing that treats a disease must be a legal medicine. If you claim vitamin C cures scurvy you are in violation of the law and your product can be pulled off the market and the person fined. The UK York Review 2000 clearly said of the 3200 studies they examined not one was class A bias unlikely. There never has been a double blind study with humans or animals to show benefit.
It is sad such pathetic non science is allowed to pass at public expense as a valid research. Look at the things like Warren Levy Iowa 2008 .Why not have a open debate and the true ignorance of the public health people will shine out. This is not about teeth but a cumulative toxin in does dozens of times allowed for lead which is less toxic then fluoride. Merck manual shows that clearly is chemistry means someting.
11 EPA unions of scientists have asked congress to halt fluoridation and set the proper goal just like other cumulative toxins arsenc and lead. ZERO. Yes ZERO. Ingested fluorides have no place in real science. HOw can you ignore the fact no researcher can show a mechanism of ingested benefit exists. Lots of faked studies by controling the selection of the people by income mostly. Income predicts in every US state the quality of the teeth with rich about 81% good to excellent and poor 50-55% no matter if fluoridation or not. How can you ignore reality when it is like the nose on your face. The big picture shows no value but con men can distort data to make it appear some benefit by controling the selection process. Public health is about repeating policy and people trusting. It does not stand up to debate.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Shelley — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:00:11 +1200

Thanks for your post. There have literally thousands of studies done about adding fluoride to water. As you have noted, one study’s findings can be different to another study on the same subject

If you haven’t already done so check out the District Health Boards website www.hawkesbaydhb.govt.nz or the Fluoride Action Network NZ website www.fannz.org.nz who both have links and information on hundreds of articles and studies. I am sure if you contact either of these organizations they would very happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thanks

Brett Way, Utilities Manager, CHB District Council

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Shelley — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:59:09 +1200

Hi Graham Thanks for your post. Council is not experts on the medical benefits or risks of adding fluoride to water, therefore we have asked experts from both sides of the debate to give their findings from the thousands of studies done worldwide. The information given is their opinions and not Councils, none of the information supplied has been checked or changed by us.

CDC I believe is short for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, further information and full referencing for the “10 misconceptions brochure” can be found on the District Health Boards website www.hawkesbaydhb.govt.nz or the Fluoride Action Network NZ website www.fannz.org.nz who also have links and information on hundreds on articles and studies. I am sure if contact either of these organizations they would very happy to answer any questions you may have.

Regards Brett Way

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

JimS — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:53:08 +1200

Grai The best data to look at to understand differences between fluoridation and non fluoridation cavity reduction is the WHO data and Bill Osmunson DDH MPH . He has a video that is easy to google under his name and fluoride video or Http://www.fluoridealert.org Http://www.waterloowatch.com . Both have the video on the home page and he also shows the chart for Every US state showing income not fluoridation predicts outcome. The WHO chart shows 4 fluoridating countries and 14 non fluoridating countries and cavity decline for 30 years.Every country can show a decline but the fluoridating one claim that was the reason. Then what is the reason for the far greater number that do not fluoridate? Selective use of data creates deception when you know the complete data shows the opposite.Only 31 countries even try any fluoridation with only 9 now having half fluoridated and almost all talked into it by the US. The British Flouridation society claims 60 countries but refused to list them over several years when they were confronted with the lie. Passing lies around is how tgheir proof is created as everyone says it. Please show primary peer reviewed research to show the facts. They really do not want the facts seen. They want someone elses words to pretty the picture instead of the truth. Read Hardy Limebacks admission when he discovered fluoridation did not work and told the public. He is a leading Canadian University researcher in dental fluorisis and said he had no clue where this product came from or what it was. He also thought it had been FDA approved. Maybe that is because that is what the dentists are taught. It is blind faith on their part also. Then they train the patients. When tested most dentists get the science incorrect. Yoder K.M. 2007 see this on pubmed.com and be shocked how very ignorant dentists test on fluoride science. High school drop out low . Actually below that. Below one in five get the basics correct. This is intentional poor training as the goal. These are smart people who buy this hook line and sinker.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

JimS — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:52:42 +1200

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

JimS — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:36:21 +1200

Grai It is really a waste of time to compare specific cities only. It is rare things are the same so it is not really a fair comparison.. MOre importantly go back to a former head of NZ health fluoridation promotion. Calhoun I believe was the name and he was fired from his post when after a world wide tour confirmed that the current data in all countries showed no cavity decrease from fluoridation. Yes you could pick carefull cities fluoridated with less cavities and non f with more cavities by looking at income more the fluoridation. The social class income issue is the big predictor not fluoridation or not. When the director got back from his world tour he went in the records and discovered the overall data for the entire country showed slightly more cavities when fluoridated but close to the same. The studies were labeled clearly to not release the results as it was secret. The biggest US study on 40,000 kids in 1986-7 from 84 communities also showed no benefit so they refused to release the data until 1990 after figuring out how to fake the report by only showing a delayed erruption as a cavity reduction. Other scientists verified the data showed a slight shift or delay but no cavity reduction.
The biggest study ever is Teotia in India on over 400,000 at all different levles but at .6ppm and above more cavities happened especially when low on calcium. Japan showed in 20,000 kids more cavities at .4ppm and above. with 26,000 kids in Tuscon Ar Steelink showed more cavities with more fluoride intake.
No researcher can show a mechanism of ingested benefit or a topical benefit at 1ppm either but they do imply it happens at 1ppm. It does not and it is questionable even below 1000ppm.
Ask to see the current peer reviewed data.
Look up US Tox profile 1993 2003 and see the long list of unusually susceptable risk groups the government documented but even after commiting to inform medical professionals in 2000 have informed no one yet. Everyone is in the high risk group by age 50. Also kidney patients , heart patients , low on calcium , magnesium, vit c, and protien low also. Most people are in one or more risk groups and many in several and some in all. None have been warned despite the promise it would happen in 2000 by the EPA. Infants are in the highest risk group as their water intake is up to 4 and 5 times higher then adults and there fast dividing cells are at greater risk. Infants drink about 2.5 OZ per pound and do the math for a adult to see how much that is. Many gallons to over 4 gallons for a big guy like me. I usually drink 1 to 2 gallons as I work outside but most drink less. I only drink non tap water now and my sever joint pain went away in three weeks when I got off the fluoride water. I was shocked. Then very mad because the EPA warns those that drink 1 gal are in the top 1% risk for damage. They just do not tell the public but it is in their data base hidden away. Denied to the public.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

JimS — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:03:59 +1200

GRAI The health authorities in all countires show pictures of destroyed milk teeth from poor habits and even worse nutrition. The damage is pathetic and our hearts go out then they imply fluoridation is the only hope for these uncared for children. Their only chance. They full well know the data shows no decrease in caries from ingested fluorides and they have even tried double and four times more fluoride with no positive results. Yes , the health services had over 400 test schools with extra 4.0-4.9ppm fluoride in the schools water. The EPA in a 1992 900 page report even listed all the schools still doing it which was 197 then. This was illegal under the law by the way and also gave no benefit. No number of kids are too many to damage in any attempt to find some benefit. If the current quality peer reviewed data existed they would be showing it to us. The studies show no measurable ingested benefit and no mechanism of topical benefit at 1ppm either. Thus all they can do is blustry grandstanding. They are hucksters and con men. Burt 2007 Detroit shows nearly 100% of 5 year olds with cavities and 84% with sever untreated caries by age 14. Detroit and nearly all poor american inner cities were fluoridated over 50 years ago and cavities are sharply increasing in the this very over fluoridated segment. Nutrition, a dentist who will actually treat the poor(most refuse to treat poor) and brushing teeth is what is needed. Fluoridation only gives them more dental fluorisis for a lifetime of even uglier teeth. Blacks are damaged double of whites with the ugliest dental fluorisis and have been from the first US experment. The CDC refused to tell them even after 2007 ethics charges.

CDC is cebnter of Disease Control out of Atlanta GA headquarters but has a oral health division which is like a office of the ADA (Dental trade association). Their goal is promotion of fluoridation and do not have a single toxicologist on staff. It is not about safety or cumulative toxicity as they do not admit any risk exists exist at the magical optimal dose. They do not really discuss dose ever but concentration of .7ppm -1.2ppm as proven safe at any intake. They did not consider any other intakes from any sources when the EPA reviewed the standard in 1983. By never allowing a single member of any panel to be anti fluoride the result is known before the meeting. In 1983 somehow they got a vote that 2.4ppm had no data to prove safe and moderate and severe fluorisis was a medical effect. Management altered the report to reverse the findings then raised the goal to 4.0ppm. This is when the Headquarters union of the EPA called this fraud and then sued to halt fluoridation in 1986 as a violation of the SDWA. The federal courts refused to hear the suit.
In 2006 both the CDC and ADA developed a official policy of no or low fluoride water for infant formula until 12 months. They have refused to actually inform the public as this is a hidden policy and 47 state health departments refused to admit it happened. Remember fluorides are controlled as contaminates as the FDA has never tested much less reviewed any ingested fluoride and they are new unapproved after 63 years of use. No country has ever even done a single health or safety chronic study on H2SiF6 or AWWA b703-06 which is the smokestack pollution scrubber pollution waste used in about 93% of fluoridation schemes.

I mentioned CDC above as to how the oral health is just really dentists to promote fluoridation.

You mentioned differences in cavities in cities. Cavities and dental health is social economic more then anything else. The UK at times does admit their entire problem is really in the two lowest social classes. It is often said 80% of the problem is in 25% of the people. Class and race issues cause many in the health services to believe those people will do nothing to help themselves and fluoridation is almost impossible for the poor to escapes and it takes no action. It is below dirt cheap as industry toxic waste is used so it is perfect. The only real problem is it never has decreased cavities in the fluoridated areas more then the non fluoridated areas. It also destroys enamel by hypominerizing enamel as it forms to give porous,brittle,discolored and easily stainable teeth that self destruct when worked on. What a small price to pay to help industry dispose of waste. The Fluoride Deception By Bryson shows all the government documents now released showing how this fraud was needed to protect the industrial contractors and the AEC atomic energy commission in making nuclear weapons. It hakes huge amounts of fluorides to produce a single bomb. By a twist of fate the same mines we get our H2SiF6 from now also produced most of the Yellowcake Uranium from the same phosphate rock. It is not cost effective so all the huge tonnage of uranium is in the rubbish pile or left in the products unmentioned to the public. The fluoridation product has traces of many radioactive decay products but much more arsenic and lead to top the list of 20 contaminates. any questions endfluoride@gmail.com Jim

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

NoFl — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:42:22 +1200

The CDC is perhaps the the Centers for Disease Control in the US. Most studies throughout the world show no difference in dental health regardless of fluoridated water or not. You are right - keep it OUT.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Grai — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:52:10 +1200

Thanks Shelley,
Does anyone know what the truth is about the comparative studies between Napier (no fluoride added to the water) and Hastings (water fluoridated for 50 years)
The anti fluoriders say that the comparison has "showed no Benefit" saying "Hastings still has more tooth decay".
The pro fluoridation camp at the information evening (the chap from the dental health unit) stated that there was a marked improvement in Hastings.
WHO IS TRYING TO MISLEAD US???????? or am I THICK????
This is an important issue for us 'The residents of Waipukurau.' Can we please have some accurate information.
AND PLEASE DON'T START MASS MEDICATING US AGAIN UNTILL WE DO.
Cheers, Grai.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Shelley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:30:31 +1200

Hi Grai - I'm not sure who CDC is... I'll talk to Brett Way, Utilities Manager for Council, and get him to respond. Regards, Shelley.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Grai — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:27:28 +1200

Since all seems to have gone quiet on this forum I thought I would like to make some input as the more I read the more confused I am about many statements.
1./ At the public information meeting the chap from the Public Dental Unit gave an emotionally charged picture of having to continually deal with the destruction of milk teeth in young children caused, he said, because they are put to bed with sugar charged drink bottles and he, in my mind was inferring that fluoridation would some how reduce this problem. Surely education is the key here. Children should not be put to bed with sugar charged drinks. would it not make more sense and be a lot safer for general health to get this simple message across to those families with bottle fed babies.
2./ In the information sheet 'The Case Against Fluoridation' We are told that the United States Public Health Service's Centers for Disease Control AND The American Dental Association are warning not to give fluoridated tap water to babies..........................
3./ In the information sheet 'The Case For Fluoridation' in clause 10 "Infants under 1 year should not be given fluoridated water" I read some advice from CDC. Who the heck is CDC? Does anyone on this forum know?
Cheers, Graham.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Shelley — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:04:22 +1200

Thanks Grai. Yes it is fantastic when citizens take the opportunity to have their say - whatever 'their say' may be!

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Grai — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:49:06 +1200

I too would like to thank you David for taking the time to thoughtfully record the gist of the public meeting. I too was there but don't have to be quite so 'politically correct' 'going forward' as I am writing personally from home in Waipukurau.
One local dentist was given the opportunity to speak against Fluoride in our water supply and two people from the 'establishment' (The DHB and the public dental unit) were able to subjectively drivel on (in my mind) with the assistance of overheads and plenty of flash technology. Although the 'establishment' were given much more floor time, my observation of the meeting, judging by applause and question time, was that the majority present were very much in favor of NOT continuing with the fluoridation of our water supply. Good on you Wapukurauians for coming out to have your say on this very important issue. I say NO TO THE MASS MEDICATION OF OUR WATER SUPPLY. Cheers, Grai.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Youth & Unemployment in CHB

Shelley — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:44:08 +1200

In August, 74 young people aged between 18 and 24 were unemployed in Central Hawke's Bay, three times more than at the same time last year.
The Ministry of Social Development is very concerned as in 1992 when an unemployment spike occurred, many under 25's found themselves with no job - and many are still unemployed to this day...

This is a huge concern for Central Hawke's Bay - or it should be. WINZ and local youth mentors from EPIC Ministries (youth mentoring and support group) are working hard to get these young people skilled e.g. drivers licenses, cv's, general lifeskills. A lot of these young people are already skilled e.g. returning from university, educated school leavers, returning from their OE - but the job market has dried up.

So what should we do in CHB to stop a generation falling into the black hole of unemployment?

The government are offering money to subsidise employers and offer training incentives with one hand - but on the other hand funding for successful landbased private training establishments like local Bay Agriculture or Landbased Training (who actually teach the kids about farming and trades) has been cut. These PTEs have funding for maybe 10 young people each - but could easily sign up 30 or 50. Emergency response funding is not accessible to private businesses.

The government incentive like the Community Max scheme target NGOs (non-government organisations) who could take on 1-6 young people for a one off community project and the young people could be paid minimum wage and gain some skills. Other schemes offer military training - but only for limited places. What happens to the young person who misses out on that last funded place?? What happens if nobody in the community comes up with a community project? What if it is in the 'too hard' basket for many people who face their own daily dilemmas?

The latest government schemes last until end 2010. I've been canvassing organisations in our area for ideas for a major community project to get these kids working (or at least achieving something) - other districts have grabbed the idea with both hands - see www.hastingsdc.govt.nz - but the CHB community is yet to get going. Maybe this takes some time? Maybe it is the perception that these under 25s are the bottom of the barrel and unemployable? I can tell you these are normal under 25s - and some smart kids to boot. They just need somebody to help them out through a rough patch. I'm trying my best.

Shelley Burne-Field, CHB Youth Coordinator

Can you help?

Posted to: Youth & Unemployment in CHB Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Shelley — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:08:38 +1200

Thanks for your comments Jim. There certainly is a lot of information out there!

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Shelley — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:07:00 +1200

Thanks for the update David. I was not at the meeting, so I will get somebody who was at the meeting to read your summary on the kindy blog. Seems fine to me. Council will either post their own, or use your link.
Regards

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Shelley — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:02:43 +1200

Thank you for your comment Brotherhood.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Shelley — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:01:48 +1200

We hope to have a summary of the meeting on the forum by Tuesday 15 September 2009. Thanks for your patience.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: A question of fluoride?

Jim Schultz — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:23:08 +1200

Fluoridation chemical used is actually collected by smokestack pollution scrubbers ordered installed in US by EPA about 1970 after a long history of lawsuits and a path of damage downwind from the fertilizer facilities. Phosphate rock contains about 3.5% fluoride which goes out the stack in the high temps with sulferic acid in big pit mixed with rock. Instead of destroying downwind it is now collected and about 500,000 tons instead of being disposed of as toxic waste are disposed of at water plants . Unmentioned to any is also 200ppm is contained in the rock and it used to be collected by 7 recovery units to produce up to 75% of all US yellowcake uranium for US nukes and reactors. The last recovery plant closed in 1998 showed AEC mine data for uranium. The huge tonnage is now just left in the products or some in huge radioactive gypsum piles of trailings from the strip mining. This is a wasteland many have never seen from Disney but it is west and south and very huge. The product is AWWA b703-06 or H2SiF6 and the specification sheet shows about 20 toxic contaminates with arsenic and lead at the top but most radioactive decay elements. Most cities refuse to disclose this data. To date this product has not one chronic safety or benefit study ever. None are planned. Almost all testing is with double distilled deionized water and pure sodium fluoride. Not real world as every water is very different and every process is different and plant design and even simple PH change gives different results.
The FDA has also never reviewed much less approved a ingested fluoride ever. It got grandfathered in as new unapproved drug claiming used prior to 1938 but when this was questioned the only use was for rat poison and insecticide. Close enough for government work. I had seen 25 had applied but withdrew prior to being rejected. I have not seen the data.
H2SiF6 is extreme corrosive and excellent at leaching lead but disinfectant makes it much more destructive. This has been known for some time but two studies prove the numbers Maas 2007 Coplan 2007 with 9 times more leaching with chloramines in bench testing with standarized water.
Washington DC had massive lead problems which they hid for almost 3 years in a massive cover up and failure of the water system. This startred in 2000 when they switched disinfectants but had been double chlorine for a while . Some old lead pipes were releasing huge amounts of lead. This was documented immediately by Marc Edwards who was doing research on huge increases in corrosion holes in pipes and water heaters causing mold and water damage gone wild destroying some buildings. This is all tied together. This damage did not leak to the public for close to 3 years then the you know what hit the fan. Free water and filters were given to 25,000 homes but they hid the fact another 100,000 had the same problem and levels of lead but no lead pipes. Extreme leaching was not under control until orthophosphate, polyphosphate, triphosphate type corrosion control products were used. This is standard but somehow was ignored for years under the eyes of government agencies. They all joined a cover up to cover their butts and hide lead damaged kid data. The CDC only tested 201 kids for blood lead levels up to a year after they were on bottled water. Levels in blood decrease 50% every month so they all tested fine by waiting. Like testing a drunk driver the next week not when picked up. Also the health department lost almost all lead records for 2003. Very handy accident. The damage was just proven for toxic brain effects by using other data by Marc Edwards and a researcher. The maiun source of lead in most homes water is leaching when water sits from the fluoridation chemicals. Who mentions that. See the Washington post articles or DC Watch has the investigation records which show the ugly truth the people did not hear. Fluoridation causes lots of other problems and makes it more difficult to get good results at your water plant and causes more expense in other chemicals and damaged pipes, pumps, valves and control sensors. Ph becomes much more critical as low Ph causes more corrosion and high more cancer causing disinfectant breakdown products. It is hard to win and no plant is always perfect and some are never perfect. We just had a big article of fake reports on fluoride and other levels which they never tested for almost 2 years in one city. They did put numbers down on the sheets but just fake ones. Often skipped data gets created instead of left blank. In the US lead is only tested for in homes every three years. Every home is different and if pipes are mixed types or poor added connections very evil things happen often with leaks and corrosion. Your water can be loaded with lead and everyone else no problem. The older the bigger risk but some new installs are very wrong also.
I worked in a condo complex built in 1974 and all the copper pipe was destroyed before 1990 like swiss cheese or soaker hose. Every unit ended up with new pipe after so many smaller fix attempts and mold and water damage of floors walls ceilings and everything you can imagine. H2SiF6 increases expensive corrosion and increases toxins in the water and never makes the water better. There are so many ways to screw up and nobody needs that. Brush your teeth if you want topical fluoride at a dose that has the ability to do good as 1ppm just has no proof of ingested or topical benefit. Look at the most current data which does not hide the truth.

Posted to: A question of fluoride? Show Thread | Post Reply