Move over fluoride, here comes Calgary's clean water!

[TorqueDog]

Anyone who suggests water fluoridation has a positive or negative impact is speaking beyond the evidence. My only concern was that water fluoridation was voted in by Calgarians and I felt it should have been voted out by them as well.

If I had voted, I'd have gladly opted to have it removed, simply because the lack of evidence speaks to me that spending nearly a million dollars a year on it is a silly expense.

[troutman]

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/CRD_R...rdreport18.pdf

http://www.cda-adc.ca/en/oral_health...oride_faqs.asp

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by robocop

ok let's get this straight so you understand what is going on. I formed an opinion on logic and live my life in the healthiest possible way given the means available to me, I wish to not have chemicals forced into my body. You on the other hand do not provide any counterpoint founded by logic, speak entirely from a place of hatred and wish death upon me. So maybe it is time to look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are really as smart as you think you are (hint: the answer is something you will not like). I have yet to read one sentence founded by logic from you, not one, so until that happens I am going to have to assume that your sole purpose here is to piss people off and I will have to ignore you.

I too have formed an opinion on logic and I too live my life in a healthy manner. perhaps not the healthiest, as I am not afraid of menial things like minor doses of chemicals or, as an example, making use of a hand sanitizing station everytime I see one. In fact, I believe over-sanitizing is more detrimental in the long term than not sanitizing at all.

I have had fluoride in my water since before it was added in 1989. As I mentioned before several pages ago, I was 6 when the plebescite was done and fluoride added to the municipal water supply. Prior to that, my mother, an RN, added fluoride manually to our water in the home.

I am now 28, and have consumed city tap water every day and from numerous sources: my own taps, water fountains, restaurants; I am as healthy as a horse, and I have zero cavities in my teeth. I am living proof that fluoride -- in the concentrations it was at in the municipal water supply -- is safe and beneficial, and I am astounded how anyone can think otherwise.

The most frequent argument I hear is that fluoride is toxic. In high concentrations, that's true. ANYTHING is toxic in high enough concentrations though, including pure, untainted water. As I am alive, clearly the level of fluoride in the water was safe.

The next frequent argument I hear is your own, 'I don't want to be forced to put chemicals in my body.' The amount added to your body is so slight it is insignificant on a macroscopic level. At 0.7 PPM, it is impossible to tell the difference between unfluoridated water and fluoridated water.

You have a liver and kidneys for a reason: They naturally cleanse and dispose of harmful toxins in the body. Whether or not you want to add them to your body, chemicals WILL get in. This is undeniable and inevitible, and its the job of these organs to make sure they do not cause harm to the rest of you.

I know I'm not as smart as I think I am, and I'm fine with that. I also know that given your field of study versus mine, you are likely far better versed and educated than I am in the fields that you study. Clearly, on the topic of health and the ingestion of chemicals, I take a more laissez-faire approach whereas you take on a 'healthiest option available,' to the point where you actively try to avoid knowingly ingesting chemicals, and equate the consumption of fluoridated water to drinking poison. That is hyperbolic paranoia, and you are way overboard. It's not nearly as bad as you think it is.

Logic. Reason.

Checkmate.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/CRD_R...rdreport18.pdf

http://www.cda-adc.ca/en/oral_health...oride_faqs.asp

The Canadian Dental Association link is rubbish, to be quite honest with you.

In response to the study done by York University, Dr. Ben Goldacre actually read and analysed the report; he had this to say:

Originally Posted by Dr. Ben Goldacre

You'll find fluoride in tea, beer and fish, which might sound like a balanced diet to you. But this week Alan Johnson announced a new push for putting it in our drinking water, with some very grand promises - and in the face of serious opposition.

General Jack D Ripper developed his theories about environmental poisoning and bodily fluids when he experienced a pervasive sense of emptiness during the physical act of love. He instantly identified the cause, as documented in Dr Strangelove: "Do you realise that in addition to fluoridating water, there are studies under way to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream! You know when fluoridation began? 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh?

"It's obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works."

Bill Etherington MP calls fluoride "poison". Nazis supposedly used it to subdue people in concentration camps. According to a former Guardian alternative health columnist, fluoride is "in the same league as lead and arsenic".

The reality is that anyone making any confident statement on fluoride speaks way beyond the evidence. In 1999 the Department of Health commissioned the centre for reviews and dissemination at York University to do a systematic review of fluoridation and its effects on dental health. Little new work has been done since. In the review, 3,200 research papers, mostly of very poor quality, were unearthed. The ones that met the minimum quality threshold suggested there was vaguely, possibly, around a 15% increase in the number of children without dental caries in areas with fluoridated water, but the studies generally couldn't exclude other explanations for the variance. Of course, the big idea with fluoride in water is that it can reduce social inequalities in dental health since everyone drinks it. But there isn't much evidence on that either.

So when the British Dental Association says there is "overwhelming evidence" that adding fluoride to water helps fight tooth decay, it is in danger of stepping into line with Ripper. And when Johnson says fluoridation is an effective, relatively easy way to help address health inequalities, he is really just pushing an old-fashioned line which says complex social problems can be addressed with £50m worth of atoms.

But since I'm in the mood for scaremongering, let's not forget the potential harm. A study from Taiwan found a high incidence of bladder cancer in women from areas where the natural fluoride content in water was high. It might have been a chance finding; but it could be real.

The problem is one of small effect sizes. Fluoride and bladder cancer would be a pig to research as the effect size is small, the exposure runs over half a century, and the outcome - bladder cancer - takes a lifetime to reveal itself. Welcome to the finer details behind "more research is needed". And the numbers can get very scary, very quickly: in the UK a 10% increase in risk would give you 1,000 extra new cases of bladder cancer a year. Fear. Actually, I enjoyed that. Maybe I should move to the Mail.

[Torture]

I don't really care too strongly one way or the other but I just can't believe that Council voted down the idea of having a panel of experts make the decision.

[photon]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

In response to the study done by York University, Dr. Ben Goldacre actually read and analysed the report; he had this to say:

Please do not copy/paste whole or significant portions of articles that you don't own the copyright to, and post a link to the full text. Thanks.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

The Canadian Dental Association link is rubbish, to be quite honest with you.

In response to the study done by York University, Dr. Ben Goldacre actually read and analysed the report; he had this to say:

Thanks for his critique, found here:

http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/fo...bodily-fluids/

Lots to sort through here:

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

When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature
http://anzhealthpolicy.com/content/4/1/25

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.

Systematic reviews, such as the York report [60], which include no studies classified by its criteria as Level A, are cited as supposed proof of the total absence of high quality evidence [59], confusing the concept of quality with the York report's evidence classification.

The evidence for the effectiveness of water fluoridation is incontrovertible. More than a dozen large-scale literature reviews have found water fluoridation, even against a backdrop of high discretionary fluoride use, to confer a caries preventive benefit in children. Further to this, water fluoridation and its effect on the tooth structure provides a benefit to adults across their lifespan.

http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/86/5/410.full

Of interest to lawyers:

http://www.bfsweb.org/documents/summ...%20jauncey.pdf

[something]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

I believe that in a democracy majority rule is indeed the superlative political determinant subject only to the reasonable expectation of a minority to not be unreasonably interfered with in their liberties that are not socially maladaptive or unreasonable to accomodate.

i.e. I would not support government mandated "whites only" lunch counters even if more than 50% of the population supported it because that would be an unreasonable infringement on minority rights of freedom of association, and there is no inherently unreasonable cost for the government to support that minority right.


On the other hand, there are all sorts of impositions on minorities that are supportable. The imposition of taxes on everyone, despite the loud objections of a small minority against any taxation is a perfect example. Social utility supports the government collecting taxes to benefit everyone even if a minority feels this to be an unfair imposition on their liberty. Fluoridation is a similar situation in my opinion. There are arguments for and against, but ultimately it is incumbent upon the minority to shift public attitude, not for the majority to give up the benefits they have become accustomed to based on a minority's lobbying ability.

I sent an email to my alderman in this regard this morning.

In your post, you were arguing for something implicit; your argument wasn't merely supportive of a majority rule: especially the bolded part. The reason I was able to deduce this implication is simply that you admit a criteria existing ulterior to majority rule, to which majority rule is subservient. Majority rule fails to be sovereign according to this understanding, and I would argue it's subservience be dictated by the concept of liberalism.

The tenets of liberalism are the superlative political determinant, of which majority rule is merely a single mechanism. However, majority rule, unchecked, has an stagnant effect on society. You introduced the notion of "rights", and within your context seems to be the underlying notion of dignity. This notion of dignity is essential for the inclusion of minorities, which we often consider to be a fundamental and demonstrable "good" in that it engages and propagates a dialectical process.

In our social conscience exists all of this, and more, reified as liberalism. It is to what we aim our social and political goals. Majority rule is nothing more than a mechanism (albeit an flawed one) that helps us attain our goals.

And kudos to you for writing your alderman! I can always appreciate civil engagement.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by photon

Please do not copy/paste whole or significant portions of articles that you don't own the copyright to, and post a link to the full text. Thanks.

Whoops, sorry 'bout that.

[Stumptown]

Even though I don't live in Calgary, as someone who has the only significant known side-effect of fluoridation (fluorosis), I wanted to chime in on the side of fluoridation. I got it when I was young from water that was naturally high in flouride, and in my 40 years I've had a grand total of 3 cavities. I don't eat a lot of sugar, but I've also lived for the last 20 years with water that isn't fluoridated (or chlorinated, but that's another story). Having the relatively high dose of fluoride in the water I drank as a small child did cause some of my teeth to be stained with yellowish stripes - that's all fluorosis is. I often wish my parents hadn't made me get some of them bonded when I was a teen, as the caps have aged they actually look worse than the fluorosis did. I know there's this fad for having unnaturally white teeth these days, but really fluorosis is a pretty minor side effect when the benefit is not having to have annual root canals and a mouth full of fillings.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Dentoman

Because this is where fluoride has its greatest effect. It is taken up into the structure of the tooth and makes it much more resistant to decay. The tooth erupts into the mouth more resistant to decay.

What I was trying to say it is the responsibility of parents to make sure their kids get fluoridated water rather than adding the stuff into tap water for everyone.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by something

In your post, you were arguing for something implicit; your argument wasn't merely supportive of a majority rule: especially the bolded part. The reason I was able to deduce this implication is simply that you admit a criteria existing ulterior to majority rule, to which majority rule is subservient. Majority rule fails to be sovereign according to this understanding, and I would argue it's subservience be dictated by the concept of liberalism.

The tenets of liberalism are the superlative political determinant, of which majority rule is merely a single mechanism. However, majority rule, unchecked, has an stagnant effect on society. You introduced the notion of "rights", and within your context seems to be the underlying notion of dignity. This notion of dignity is essential for the inclusion of minorities, which we often consider to be a fundamental and demonstrable "good" in that it engages and propagates a dialectical process.

In our social conscience exists all of this, and more, reified as liberalism. It is to what we aim our social and political goals. Majority rule is nothing more than a mechanism (albeit an flawed one) that helps us attain our goals.

And kudos to you for writing your alderman! I can always appreciate civil engagement.

I like you... You're something!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by troutman

It is ignorance. It is a fact that water flouridation has significant health benefits.

You could steer an aircraft carrier through some of the logical fallacies in this thread.

So you say there is conclusive evidence fluoridation has positive net effect on health yet USA/Ireland and parts of Australia/Canada are the only ones seeing it. Does not compute.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Really?

If you don't want to consume City tap water, for whatever reason (taste, fluoridation, perceived mind-control conspiracy, whatever), I'm sure you can put in the research so that your needs are served without using it. Some people already do this.

You said reasonable.

I understand bottled water is an alternative, but I wouldn't call it reasonable to pay for bottled water so you can drink.

I'm in favor of fluoride in my water, but I can understand why some people might not want it in their water. It's a good debate which isn't as black and white as a lot of people are making it seem.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

So you say there is conclusive evidence fluoridation has positive net effect on health yet USA/Ireland and parts of Australia/Canada are the only ones seeing it. Does not compute.

We may be talking past each other. I thought your premise was "if flouride has a positive effect, why aren't more countries using it". Whether or not countries are using it says nothing about its effectiveness.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So people who don't want Fluoride in their water should be provided said water free of charge at every working tap in the city but people who do want Fluoride in their water should have to go out and purchase fluoride from a third party retailer at further expense?

The logic works both ways.

Sorry but that statment isn't logical at all.

Don't you think a much easier solution would be for the flouride to simply be removed from the water source and then have the government supply bottles of flouride to those interested for free (or very cheap)? Would that not satisfy everyone?

[4X4]

The more I think about it, the more I think that it's kind of a waste to be paying close to a milion dollars to flouridate all the water, when probably 90% of it is used for showers, toilets, and washing things. How much of the water that the plant treats is actually drank? I bet that the biggest reason I've had one cavity in my 32 years is that I brush my teeth daily.

I think I want to change my vote to no.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Sorry but that statment isn't logical at all.

Don't you think a much easier solution would be for the flouride to simply be removed from the water source and then have the government supply bottles of flouride to those interested for free (or very cheap)? Would that not satisfy everyone?

Fluoride stations. Cheap and easy to use.

Or use tissue salts with the right amount of fluoride per liter. Pay $10.00 for 1000 tablets which is affordable if you are not below the poverty line. If you are then they can be subsidized! Way cheaper than bottled water!

[something]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Sorry but that statment isn't logical at all.

Don't you think a much easier solution would be for the flouride to simply be removed from the water source and then have the government supply bottles of flouride to those interested for free (or very cheap)? Would that not satisfy everyone?

Lol!

[mikey_the_redneck]

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/.../who-dmft.html