Does fluoride really cause cancer?

Discussion in 'Science' started by ck_psy, Apr 10, 2012.

  1. rush

    rush Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,708
    Wow. What a horribly paranoid way to think.

    It says more about the author of those thoughts than it does about doctors.
     
  2. meremortal

    meremortal Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Benowa, Gold Coast
    Off topic re: cancer however on topic re: flouridation of water this article linked covers quite a few reasons not to flouridate water - 50 to be exact. Plenty of good science to back up many of the points.

    Consent and dosage are my two biggest issues with water fluoridation irrespective of any health positives or negatives.

    As an example of dosage.

    An office worker sitting in air con drinking 1 liter of water a day would get 1/4 of the dose compared to a tradey out in the sun drinking say 4 liters of water a day.

    http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

    "1) Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies fluoride as a drug when used to prevent or mitigate disease (FDA 2000). As a matter of basic logic, adding fluoride to water for the sole purpose of preventing tooth decay (a non-waterborne disease) is a form of medical treatment. All other water treatment chemicals are added to improve the water’s quality or safety, which fluoride does not do.

    2) Fluoridation is unethical. Informed consent is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of Western Europe has ruled against fluoridation. With water fluoridation we are allowing governments to do to whole communities (forcing people to take a medicine irrespective of their consent) what individual doctors cannot do to individual patients.

    Put another way: Does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it is against that neighbor’s will)?

    3) The dose cannot be controlled. Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives because people drink different amounts of water. Being able to control the dose a patient receives is critical. Some people (e.g., manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink substantially more water than others.

    4) The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability. According to Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology and one of the scientists who helped keep fluoridation out of Sweden:

    “Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication — of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day — to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy” (Carlsson 1978).

    5) People now receive fluoride from many other sources besides water. Fluoridated water is not the only way people are exposed to fluoride. Other sources of fluoride include food and beverages processed with fluoridated water (Kiritsy 1996; Heilman 1999), fluoridated dental products (Bentley 1999; Levy 1999), mechanically deboned meat (Fein 2001), tea (Levy 1999), and pesticide residues (e.g., from cryolite) on food (Stannard 1991; Burgstahler 1997). It is now widely acknowledged that exposure to non-water sources of fluoride has significantly increased since the water fluoridation program first began (NRC 2006)."
     
  3. Foliage

    Foliage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    32,088
    Location:
    Sleepwithyourdadelaide
    That just isn't true, you are implying people do things only for the selfish need to make money, sure some do and most people do to varying extents, but not EVERY SINGLE doctor, hell GPs don't even get paid per visit, most of them are on a salary.
     
  4. Luke212

    Luke212 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,001
    Location:
    Sydney
    bottom line none of you know enough about Flouride to have an educated say. Leave it to the scientists in this field, and STFU
     
  5. Foliage

    Foliage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    32,088
    Location:
    Sleepwithyourdadelaide
    But do you know enough about anything to tell us that? ;)
     
  6. rush

    rush Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,708
    There is some really flaky and circular reasoning in there.

    1) Is a appealing to a logical fallacy. It is uncommon so it must be wrong.
    2) Just saying it is unethical does not make it unethical. It is just as easy to say that adding fluoride to water is ethical. Just saying it doesn't magically make it so.
    3) The point was never about the dosage, it was about replicating the benefits found in areas with naturally higher levels of fluoride in the water. The dosage isn't controlled in those areas either.
    4) This assumes that there are people who are more 'vulnerable' somehow. If we turned it around and said that clean air goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability you would see no problem, as it is assumed that clean air is good for you. It is only if you assume that fluoride is bad that you can go on about who receives it.
    5) There are also many who don't.
     
  7. maev

    maev Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,424
    Location:
    Mid-North Coast, 2428
    Stumbled across this today while watching my usual workout tip videos (bodybuild oriented video), funnily about fluoride in tap water: interesting watch:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqlr75jht1k

    Definitely guys. Very harsh views indeed, and merely opinion. TBH though, I live in a rural town, there are a handful of doctors here and all of them are jokingly unprofessional. The one I'm going to at the moment can't even properly communicate with his clients (or at least me).

    First visit i walk in, sit down, he just blankly stares at me and I basically have to introduce myself like its some help-therapy service, ask HIM what I need to do to fix my issues, why they occur, and he literally goes onto google images and says 'i think this is what you have, take this'.
    Literally failed to diagnose my problems after multiple visits.
    Same thing with another female doctor, except instead of focusing on the patient she just rants about her own life, and then walks out into the common-room where everyone waits and untactfuly speaks about your personal issues in front of everyone.

    What's the deal with (what seems like most doctors) being so unable to communicate and connect with their clients. How can they possibly help if they can't be bothered to interact on a personal level.

    I'm putting my bad experiences down to bad luck, and I do have good faith and respect for professional and passionate practitioners in each field of medicine (My initial doctor was awesome and fantastic, but he moved to north QLD to help charity and children), but my luck and patience with the bad type is running thin.

    Anyway, I don't want to get this topic off track, I found that video very interesting, though taking it with a grain of salt, but worth a listen / look for sure.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2013
  8. Foliage

    Foliage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    32,088
    Location:
    Sleepwithyourdadelaide
    Move to a major city then. Also dorian is a crackpot as discussed in his this thread recently, dude talks as a figure of authority but is just like everyone else, an internet nobody, he just happens to have a history of being world wide known, he hasn't studied anything however so he shouldn't be talking with authority on the topic like that.

    http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?p=15078314
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2013
  9. maev

    maev Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,424
    Location:
    Mid-North Coast, 2428
    Haha yeah I definitely find the whole 'spiritual world' shit a bit hard to fathom, and they sort of lost me with that one, but it is interesting to see how the pineal gland is affected/calcified (regulates melatonin/serotonin), so definitely something you'd want to keep in shape regardless.

    Would love to see the comparison of developing countries that wouldn't have treated water to those that do (Whether there is indeed any difference at all). Very hard to see a basic consensus on this, the whole topic doesn't bother me though; I've had no adverse reaction to fluoride.

    You've obviously done your research though Foliage, so I'd rather just take any words you have other watching all the shit on the internet, especially when the theories are unjustified / unsupported.

    I guess the most sensible question to ask would be 'What substances DO regulate the pineal gland, and to what effect". Seems like there hasn't been a lot of attention give to it (at least according to my basic wiki research).
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2013
  10. Foliage

    Foliage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    32,088
    Location:
    Sleepwithyourdadelaide
    it is commonly calcified with age, flouride happens to get incorporated into calcium deposits, it isn't the cause afaik.
     
  11. meremortal

    meremortal Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Benowa, Gold Coast
    So you are coming from the belief that water flouridation is safe and good and for the good of all?

    You welcome it?

    Everyone should drink it every day?

    A sign of civilised society?

    I'm sure you've done far more research than me on the subject. :)

    I think it's pretty safe to say there is now plenty of proper peer reviewed scientific research to show there are far fewer benefits from fluoridated water than to fluoridate.

    I'm sure you're also aware of all the countries in Europe that don't fluoridate and their reasons and their tooth decay levels.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

    If in doubt. Leave it out.

    The first rule of medicine is "Do no harm".
     
  12. gregpolk

    gregpolk Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,403
    Location:
    Brisbane
    "The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment."\

    Curious what their fluoride levels actually were in these chinese water sources where they had a concern about fluoride toxicity. Doesn't really sound like you can then infer that because you have a result from that water source then that is the same as all fluoride containing water. Reading it now.

    EPA sets water fluoride levels at between 0.7-1.2mg/L. Maximum allowable in drinking water, though they wouldn't be adding fluoride up to this level obviously, is 4.0mg/L. Their animal study was with incubating in 20-80mg/L.
    The example of a high fluoride source includes 4.55mg/L, 2.1-7.6mg/L, 4.7-31.6mg/L, 2-11mg/L,...
    High fluoride levels had lower IQs than low fluoride levels. Low being what our water is. I could think of a few reasons why those forced to drink contaminated well water would be scoring lower IQs than those who can drink safer water, but I'd have to read the original papers to see if they've controlled for this, and I can't be bothered.

    So yeah, if you live near a coal burning contaminated water source in China, you might want to be careful. Good thing we don't.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2013
  13. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,236
    Location:
    Sydney
    That doesn't apply to public health.
    We need water, lots of it, cheaply.
    We don't want people to get diseases from it. We add chlorine.
    Don't add enough, bugs survive, people get sick. Add too much dead bugs + organic matter + chlorine = a soup of organochlorides = cancer.
    On top of that another soup of nasties gets into our water supply including DDT, PCB etc.
    Add to that heavy metals such as lead and arsenic.

    No option to leave any of this out. Just my humble not very scientific opinion that adding a tiny amount of flouride that has know health benefits at a level well below any known adverse affects is a trivial issue. If what's in the water that comes out of the tap is worrying you then flouride should be way down the list of things to be concerned about. Be careful too with spring water in plastic bottles.

    Public health is about compromises based on the best scientific evidence we have and what the public purse can afford. We add iodine and folate to foods, we treat water to an acceptable level and we add chlorine and flouride in the interest of better public health.
     
  14. Luke212

    Luke212 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,001
    Location:
    Sydney
    Some times decisions are not right or wrong. Even if flouride slightly increased cancer rates, it still might be better as a whole than having a huge decay epidemic. Its a complex balance. So even if you find some article proving either of the above, it wont solve the bigger questions. And too complicated for average joe with a passing interest.
     
  15. kkkrusty

    kkkrusty Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    89
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'll put my two cents in here,

    The majority of fluoride in Australia comes from the following source:
    http://msds.orica.com/cgi-bin/search/chemnet.cgi?countrycode=010&product=Fluoride&cas=

    You can read each of the Material Safety Data Sheets for each compound given above.
    These MSDS's must be keep up to date and cover all known issues surrounding the chemical by law. Failure to do so would open all manner of legal action.

    Read these, take from it what you will.
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just remember proving correlation between cancer and fluoride in isolation is practically impossible. This is one of the hardest things to do in medicine and the reason you will always have fence sitters.
     
  16. rush

    rush Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,708
    You are welcome to keep guessing at what I think if it makes you feel better.

    I did research this a fair bit, as some of my friends recently asked for my support in their anti-fluoridation campaign.

    Everything I found that supposedly supported their position was based on the same poorly done research, logical fallacies or purely emotive arguments.

    For example, the first rule of medicine "Do no harm" would seem like reason to never make an incision with a scalpel, if your reasoning was poor enough.

    If that is the study I am thinking of, then it was done so poorly that any conclusions drawn from it may as well be random.
     
  17. meremortal

    meremortal Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Benowa, Gold Coast
    Can your research shed some light on these points from the same article? (links and graphs are in the article)

    http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

    Swallowing fluoride provides no (or very little) benefit

    11) Benefit is topical not systemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. Since the purported benefit of fluoride is topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, there is no justification for forcing people (against their will) to ingest fluoride through their water supply.

    12) Fluoridation is not necessary. Most western, industrialized countries have rejected water fluoridation, but have nevertheless experienced the same decline in childhood dental decay as fluoridated countries. (See data from World Health Organization presented graphically in Figure).

    13) Fluoridation’s role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed, Missing, and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing their entire lives in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface, and less than 1% of the 100+ tooth surfaces available in a child’s mouth. Large surveys from three Australian states have found even less of a benefit, with decay reductions ranging from 0 to 0.3 of one permanent tooth surface (Spencer 1996; Armfield & Spencer 2004). None of these studies have allowed for the possible delayed eruption of the teeth that may be caused by exposure to fluoride, for which there is some evidence (Komarek 2005). A one-year delay in eruption of the permanent teeth would eliminate the very small benefit recorded in these modern studies.

    14) NIH-funded study on individual fluoride ingestion and tooth decay found no significant correlation. A multi-million dollar, U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study found no significant relationship between tooth decay and fluoride intake among children. (Warren 2009) This is the first time tooth decay has been investigated as a function of individual exposure (as opposed to mere residence in a fluoridated community).

    15) Tooth decay is high in low-income communities that have been fluoridated for years. Despite some claims to the contrary, water fluoridation cannot prevent the oral health crises that result from rampant poverty, inadequate nutrition, and lack of access to dental care. There have been numerous reports of severe dental crises in low-income neighborhoods of US cities that have been fluoridated for over 20 years (e.g., Boston, Cincinnati, New York City, and Pittsburgh). In addition, research has repeatedly found fluoridation to be ineffective at preventing the most serious oral health problem facing poor children, namely “baby bottle tooth decay,” otherwise known as early childhood caries (Barnes 1992; Shiboski 2003).

    16) Tooth decay does not go up when fluoridation is stopped. Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has generally continued to decrease (Maupomé 2001; Kunzel & Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel 2000; Seppa 2000).

    17) Tooth decay was coming down before fluoridation started. Modern research shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced in Australia and New Zealand and have
    continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized. (Colquhoun 1997; Diesendorf 1986). As the following figure indicates, many other factors are responsible for the decline of tooth decay that has been universally reported throughout the western world.

    18) The studies that launched fluoridation were methodologically flawed. The early trials conducted between 1945 and 1955 in North America that helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960, 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials “are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.” Serious questions have also been raised about Trendley Dean’s (the father of fluoridation) famous 21-city study from 1942 (Ziegelbecker 1981).
     
  18. Foliage

    Foliage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    32,088
    Location:
    Sleepwithyourdadelaide
    Have you found many good studies on topical vs swallowed fluoride along with that? I simply reject biased sources like a website with the name "fluoridealert", would much prefer read an independent selection of studies not cherry picked ones to support their confirmation bias.
     
  19. rush

    rush Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,708
    I went down a similar route not that long ago. I gave a sincere effort to research this for my friends. It didn't matter what I disproved, other red herrings were thrown at me.

    Funnily enough, when I spotted that pattern and realised that I was never going to convince people with facts or good scientific method, they took that as a sign of victory (instead of craziness).

    Believe what you want to believe. If you haven't seen enough now to doubt the anti-fluroide movement then you will never see enough. It is like the God of the gaps. If you want to believe then that is what will happen.
     
  20. meremortal

    meremortal Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Benowa, Gold Coast
    So you think the study in Point 13 by the NIDR or the study in Point 11 by the CDC aren't good science or didn't follow good scientific method?

    Or that the European countries that choose not to flouridate are wrong for their reasons?

    Do you think all potable water should be flouridated?
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: