Israel Outlaws Flouridation of Drinking Water

[fromderinside]

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

Does the govt have the right to force mass medication? I say no.

You can get fluoride treatments from a dentist, and all the fluoridated toothpaste you want.

It seems people don't tend to actually do what they need to do to minimize their burden on society. Of course treatments are available. However social constructions are such that those, in a capitalist democratic culture, with the least need to prioritize other things such as staying alive against paying for preventative health. These types of things being the norm most cultures agree preventative measures should be mandatory and at state expense.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

Israel is trying to get rid of Palestinians by removing flouride in their drinking water, and give them caries. Duh!

They have teeth?????

 

[DBT]

I do use a charcoal filter, but that isn't the point. I was referring to the principle of going over and above water purification and encroaching into the territory of mass public medication, adding an element into the public water supply that is meant to improve public health, an element that some consumers may not want in their water supply regardless of its benefits..for the reason that we are not given a choice on whether to use fluoride, or not . You get what you are given, it's good for you...

I think the anti-vaccination crowd makes the same argument, though obviously dental caries is far less significant a health problem, than say, polio or small pox.

Not the same at all. The difference being that microbial infection is not comparable to have rotten teeth through slack dietary habits: fizzy soft drinks that a full of sugar, processed carbs, biscuits, lollies, poor oral hygiene....all of this being preventable through simple measures that not only keep your teeth healthy, but prevent many of our lifestyle diseases, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, etc, and not just take the easy band aid solution of fluoridating the water supply. Which probably misses some of the target group because they drink fizzy sugar water.

 

[fast]

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

Does the govt have the right to force mass medication? I say no.

You can get fluoride treatments from a dentist, and all the fluoridated toothpaste you want.

It seems people don't tend to actually do what they need to do to minimize their burden on society.

That highly suggests that the burden is a function of the failure of the citizen, but take away the mandates initiated by government, then there isn't necessarily a burden ... Depends on situation.

If the government started making taxpayers cover the cost of all dental needs for children, then is the parent who neglects to carry their young child in for preventative care creating a higher burden on society that will ultimately pay the higher costs of dental care for older children?

 

[Metaphor]

But you don't take responsibility for purifying your drinking water. How interesting.

I do use a charcoal filter, but that isn't the point. I was referring to the principle of going over and above water purification and encroaching into the territory of mass public medication, adding an element into the public water supply that is meant to improve public health, an element that some consumers may not want in their water supply regardless of its benefits..for the reason that we are not given a choice on whether to use fluoride, or not . You get what you are given, it's good for you...

What you call "mass public medication" is in fact what most people call "public health".

Of all the public health initiatives of the 20th Century, although water flouridation does not outrank mass vaccination or antismoking campaigns, it is undoubtedly a triumph. I need only compare my dental health to that of my parents to thank my lucky stars I was born in a country and an era that adds flouride to water.

 

[DBT]

I do use a charcoal filter, but that isn't the point. I was referring to the principle of going over and above water purification and encroaching into the territory of mass public medication, adding an element into the public water supply that is meant to improve public health, an element that some consumers may not want in their water supply regardless of its benefits..for the reason that we are not given a choice on whether to use fluoride, or not . You get what you are given, it's good for you...

What you call "mass public medication" is in fact what most people call "public health".

Yes. The point here being that some public health issues, unlike the issue of contagious diseases and vaccination, are a matter of lifestyle, too much junk food, excessive sugar consumption, obesity, type 2 diabetes (which is practically an epidemic in the west) metabolic syndrome, etc, which should be addressed in terms of promoting a healthy diet.
Which would not only improve dental health but prevent many of our lifestyle diseases, and not just apply a band aid measure of adding something to the water supply that does nothing to address the most serious underlying public health issues. Most of the fluoride just goes down the drain anyway. It may be better to legislate for the adding fluoride into soft drinks, which would target those that need fluoride.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes. The point here being that some public health issues, unlike the issue of contagious diseases and vaccination, are a matter of lifestyle,

I was not aware that 'lifestyle' issues were not public health issues. Are you suggesting that widespread anti-smoking campaigns by governments are not 'public health' efforts, or they are not legitimate public health efforts?

too much junk food, excessive sugar consumption, obesity, type 2 diabetes (which is practically an epidemic in the west) metabolic syndrome, etc, which should be addressed in terms of promoting a healthy diet.

Individual health and public health are not mutually exclusive.

Which would not only improve dental health but prevent many of our lifestyle diseases, and not just apply a band aid measure of adding something to the water supply that does nothing to address the most serious underlying public health issues.

Flouridation is not a 'band aid'. Flouride in people's mouths really truly improves dental health. It doesn't cover up a symptom, it treats the disease.

Most of the fluoride just goes down the drain anyway. It may be better to legislate for the adding fluoride into soft drinks, which would target those that need fluoride.

I can agree that targeting drinking water and fluids might be more effective (though ironically not necessarily more cost effective).

But the fact that most water just goes down the drain is neither here nor there. The question is: does flouridating tap water lead to a public health benefit to such an extent that it is a desirable action? The answer is a simple 'yes'.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Having just returned from an area that consumed well water exclusively (Sierra snow melt), the children and adults looked none the worse for wear. This of course is anecdotal based on the number of folks who smiled at me. Mostly rural back country folk. Can't imagine they were particularly fastidious about their dental care.

Here's an interesting tidbit. A local write up:

This is getting ridiculous. Conservation groups in Ohio are now demanding state and federal aid (our tax dollars) to combat phosphorus pollution in Lake Erie. The phosphorus fertilizer runoff from farmlands has caused algae blooms in Lake Erie which produce the liver toxin called microcystin.

Then, Avon Lake Municipal Utilities, Cleveland area's water treatment provider, injects the toxic chemical, sodium fluorosilicate, into our tap water because we have an Ohio law mandating this addition. We pay for this injection. Sodium fluorosilicate is produced from two gases (HF and SiF4) generated as byproducts from phosphorus fertilizer factories. These chemicals, according to material safety data sheets are "corrosive to every living tissue" and fluoride ions have recently been identified and labeled as neurotoxic.

Recently, the Medina County Health Department recommended that seniors (like me) drink the fluoridated tap water, because supposedly it's good for our teeth. However, the largest study ever conducted in the United States, sponsored by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1990 and paid for by taxpayers, showed no statistical difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. When will the public's well being be more important than big money interests?

Ron Greinke, PhD,

Link

More yummy stuff:

The fluoride chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water are: hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride. Unlike the fluoride compounds found in toothpaste or supplements, fluoridation chemicals are not pharmaceutical grade quality. They are, instead, unpurified industrial by-products that are collected in the air pollution control systems of certain industries.

Link

What the CDC says:

Fluoride Additives Are Not Different From Natural Fluoride

Some consumers have questioned whether fluoride from natural groundwater sources, such as calcium fluoride, is better than fluorides added "artificially," such as FSA or sodium fluoride. Two recent scientific studies listed below demonstrate that the same fluoride ion is present in naturally occurring fluoride or fluoride drinking water additives and that no intermediates or other products were observed at pH levels as low as 3.5. In addition, fluoride metabolism is not affected differently by the chemical compounds nor are they affected by whether the fluoride is present naturally or artificially.

You Can Trust US

 

[fast]

It seems people don't tend to actually do what they need to do to minimize their burden on society.

That highly suggests that the burden is a function of the failure of the citizen, but take away the mandates initiated by government, then there isn't necessarily a burden ... Depends on situation.

If the government started making taxpayers cover the cost of all dental needs for children, then is the parent who neglects to carry their young child in for preventative care creating a higher burden on society that will ultimately pay the higher costs of dental care for older children?

oh, and Steve, having the right wouldn't make it right anyway.

 

[DBT]

I was not aware that 'lifestyle' issues were not public health issues. Are you suggesting that widespread anti-smoking campaigns by governments are not 'public health' efforts, or they are not legitimate public health efforts?

Yes, but the government doesn't make us all take nicotine patches because some people are addicted to smoking. Sure, have campaigns on health issues, including diet in general, take measures to help smokers kick their habit, but this has nothing to do with those who do not smoke. And keep in mind that tooth decay is not contagious. Do the campaigns on tooth decay prevention, apply dental health and fluoride programs in schools where the target group congregate. Improve oral health through education, diet, regular cleaning...that is a public health program that allows personal choice.

Individual health and public health are not mutually exclusive.

Of course. But I'm saying that eduction is the way to go. And start early, in primary school if parents are incapable of teaching their children about oral health, or apparently, prevent their children from eating junk food and guzzling fizzy lolly water.

Flouridation is not a 'band aid'. Flouride in people's mouths really truly improves dental health. It doesn't cover up a symptom, it treats the disease.

There wouldn't be such a problem if children are taught the basics of looking after their teeth. Rotting teeth is not a contagious disease, but a poor lifestyle choice. Education is the key to prevention. Public fluoridation caters for those who are too busy to care, irresponsible and perhaps some that are incapable.

But the fact that most water just goes down the drain is neither here nor there. The question is: does flouridating tap water lead to a public health benefit to such an extent that it is a desirable action? The answer is a simple 'yes'.

It doesn't discriminate between those that take responsibility for their own health and subgroups that are at high risk. Not everyone needs it, those that do need it may not get the optimal dosage. Manual workers may drink a lot of water, while school children may drink very little. The dosage being haphazard.

While this article supports fluoridation, it also outlines many other effective strategies, which can be implemented while allowing individual choice on application and control of dosage.

''Measured use of fluoride modalities is particularly appropriate during the time of anterior tooth enamel development (i.e., age <6 years).''

Fluoride Toothpaste
Fluoride toothpaste is widely available, no more expensive than nonfluoride toothpaste, and periodically improved. Use of a pea-sized amount (0.25 g) twice per day requires approximately two tubes of toothpaste per year, for an estimated annual cost of $6--$12, depending on brand, tube size, and retail source (265). Persons who brush and use toothpaste regularly to maintain periodontal health and prevent stained teeth and halitosis (i.e., bad breath) incur no additional cost for the caries-preventive benefit of fluoride in toothpaste. Because of its multiple benefits, most persons consider fluoride toothpaste a highly cost-effective caries-preventive modality. ''


Our city had a vote on fluoridation years ago and it was rejected, the council has dismantled the machinery. There has been a push by some dentists to reinstate but the polls run at about 50/50 on issue. I think there is about a ten percent difference between our city and a comparable city with fluoridation. The difference could probably be addressed through school programs and public education.

For some it's a matter of choice, for others, it removes responsibility - ''let the Government look after our health''