Discussion that challenges supposed mainstream beliefs and officially accepted stances

[4channel]

Some issues when discussed can cause a range of reactions. Sometimes they can lead to an awakening, the beginning of a journey to discovering something new, or they can can cause a certain type of reaction in a person who may not like what they hear. I think that it's all about how we choose to deal with the info we're hearing and how we process it.

Take the issues of let's say ....  fluoride and mobile phone tower radiation. The government has allowed the fluoridation of our water and they have allowed the construction of mobile phone towers in residential areas. Does that mean the water is safe to drink and it causes no ill affect? Does that mean that the mobile phone towers are safe?  What about the handsets. Are they safe for children to use and hold against their heads?

Well, we discuss these things and some people do react angrily to the people discussing these issues. Does this mean that we have to stop discussion that challenges the supposed official stance or challenges what we are told is the mainstream belief? Do we have to self-censor or have this in a [private group? I have noticed that in discussion forums or the media that racist beliefs are a;allowed a platform and yet issues that many folk feel that need to be addressed because of health concerns are not given the same platform. To me racism is abhorrent and yet in the media, it gets the pass ticket while issues that some call important to health freedom do not! Why is that?  Could it be political? What are your thoughts?

NOTE:

Spoiler

This is a discussion that some people here would be interested in while others may not be. Folks with opposing views are welcome as  always. Please, if someone has an issue with these topics being discussed or another member, could they refrain from any attacks on others or deliberately flooding this thread with off topic filler.

[joz*garage]

What's this thread about?

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@joz*garage wrote:

What's this thread about?

---

It's a story of much ado about nothing. 

[davewil1964]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@joz*garage wrote:

What's this thread about?

---

It's a story of much ado about nothing. 

---

Spot on.

From an expert, no less.

[4channel]

---

@*kazumi* wrote:

No.  Fluoride does not kill the bacteria.  Tooth decay occurs when acid corrodes the outer surface of the tooth. Mouth bacteria produces this acid from sugary food and drinks. Fluoride helps to strengthen the tooth’s mineral structure. It acts like a repair kit, repairing the early stages of tooth decay before it becomes permanent.  The drinking water has 1 mg/L

Thanks for the link, which states:

"F is the most successful active agent against dental caries. It is also one of the few agents that can stimulate bone cell proliferation and therefore may be of benefit in optimizing bone mineral density, important in maintaining bone health throughout life.  The necessary level of exposure for fluorosis to occur amounts to at least 20 mg/day of fluoride for at least 20 years of adult life."

---

Well, I appreciate what you're saying Kazumi but, in that case with fluoridated water, it's best to swish it around in the mouth and spit it out because the possible benefits are only topical and ingesting it does no good. Swallowing fluoridated water to protect teeth is a bit like using sunscreen on your body to protect from the sun and swallowing the rest.

---

Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2018 Sep-Dec; 22(3): 121–127.

doi: 10.4103/ijoem.IJOEM_124_18

PMCID: PMC6309358

PMID: 30647513

The Untold Story of Fluoridation: Revisiting the Changing Perspectives

Abstract

The discovery of fluoride in dentistry has revolutionized treatment modalities with a new aspect of prevention and conservation of tooth structure coming into foreplay. Since then, there has been a lot of research on both topical and systemic fluoridation in an overzealous attempt to control the most debilitating dental problem of caries. Although topical fluoride is still being widely used as a preventive measure for dental caries, systemic administration of the same has gained major criticism worldwide due to the low margin of safety of fluoride and no control over the amount of individual intake when administered on a community level. This problem is more prevalent in countries with presence of natural fluoride belts that extend from Turkey to China and Japan through Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan increasing the chances of both dental and skeletal fluorosis and hence increasing the focus toward defluoridation. This historical review highlights the distribution of fluoride worldwide and in India and also discusses about the various claims of the antifluoride lobby.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6309358/

---

In addition to making bones more brittle (even though they may appear dense), Fluoride has been linked to bone cancer in boys. This has been known for years.

---

The Guardian   Fluoride water 'causes cancer'

Boys at risk from bone tumours, shock research reveals

Bob Woffinden

Sun 12 Jun 2005 11.06 AEST First published on Sun 12 Jun 2005 11.06 AEST

Fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys, a disturbing new study indicates, although there is no evidence of a link for girls.

New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - bet-ween the ages of 10 and 19.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/jun/12/medicineandhealth.genderissues

---

[the_great_she_elephant]

The European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) reviewed the evidence on water fluoridation in 2010. It concluded that the evidence linking fluoride in water to osteosarcoma was “equivocal,” and that therefore “fluoride cannot be classified as to its carcinogenicity.”

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk.html

Over the past 30 years, expert agencies around the world have reviewed the available evidence on water fluoridation and whether it is linked to an increased risk of cancer. These agencies include the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)(1987)5, the US Public Health Service (1991)6, the Medical Research Council (2002)7, the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER)(2011)8, California's Identification Committee (CIC)9 and Royal Society of New Zealand (2014)10. The consensus has been either that there is not enough quality evidence to draw a conclusion one way or the other, or the evidence does not show a link between water fluoridation and any type of cancer.

https://www.cancerwa.asn.au/resources/cancermyths/fluoride-cancer-myth/

Claims have been made that fluoride is associated with osteosarcoma. The Department of Health and Human Services has collaborated with Cancer Council Victoria to provide balanced, evidence-based advice about these claims.

Epidemiological studies show no clear association between fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma.

https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/public-health/water/water-fluoridation/fluoride-and-osteosarcoma

For the studies that did show a link between fluoridation and bone cancer, it’s important to acknowledge their limitations. In the 1991 rat study, for example, levels of fluoride used in the study were much higher than what would be found in a community fluoridation program.

In the 2006 Harvard University study, there may have been a potential selection bias because of how hospitals were chosen in the study. Also, the number of cases of bone cancer within this age group would have been extremely small. This limits the statistical power of the study.

In 2011, results of the second part of the Harvard study were published. It compared fluoride levels in bones near osteosarcoma tumors to those in bones with other types of tumors. The researchers found no difference in fluoride levels between the different tumors.

https://www.healthline.com/health/fluoride-cancer#the-research

[rogespeed]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

The European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) reviewed the evidence on water fluoridation in 2010. It concluded that the evidence linking fluoride in water to osteosarcoma was “equivocal,” and that therefore “fluoride cannot be classified as to its carcinogenicity.”

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk.html

Over the past 30 years, expert agencies around the world have reviewed the available evidence on water fluoridation and whether it is linked to an increased risk of cancer. These agencies include the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)(1987)5, the US Public Health Service (1991)6, the Medical Research Council (2002)7, the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER)(2011)8, California's Identification Committee (CIC)9 and Royal Society of New Zealand (2014)10. The consensus has been either that there is not enough quality evidence to draw a conclusion one way or the other, or the evidence does not show a link between water fluoridation and any type of cancer.

https://www.cancerwa.asn.au/resources/cancermyths/fluoride-cancer-myth/

Claims have been made that fluoride is associated with osteosarcoma. The Department of Health and Human Services has collaborated with Cancer Council Victoria to provide balanced, evidence-based advice about these claims.

Epidemiological studies show no clear association between fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma.

https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/public-health/water/water-fluoridation/fluoride-and-osteosarcoma

For the studies that did show a link between fluoridation and bone cancer, it’s important to acknowledge their limitations. In the 1991 rat study, for example, levels of fluoride used in the study were much higher than what would be found in a community fluoridation program.

In the 2006 Harvard University study, there may have been a potential selection bias because of how hospitals were chosen in the study. Also, the number of cases of bone cancer within this age group would have been extremely small. This limits the statistical power of the study.

In 2011, results of the second part of the Harvard study were published. It compared fluoride levels in bones near osteosarcoma tumors to those in bones with other types of tumors. The researchers found no difference in fluoride levels between the different tumors.

https://www.healthline.com/health/fluoride-cancer#the-research

---

" no clear association with between fluoride in drinking water ..."  ah but grasshopper , fluoride in most toothpaste , fluoride in tea - and how much water do you drink a day - no fudging , include most soft drink , beer etc - so what is the real flouride daily consumption ? 

[joz*garage]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@joz*garage wrote:

What's this thread about?

---

It's a story of much ado about nothing. 

---

Cheers.

But, I'd prefer a summary written in a poem...anyone?

[4channel]

---

@simone4010 wrote:

Do dollars$$$$$$ sometimes speak louder than the inner voice of morality?

4channel - It's a big yes from me. I think the problem is with who is funding some of these studies. Research costs money and sometimes there is a conflict of interest with who is funding the studies. The money generally comes from the government, big pharmaceutical companies and the food industry. For example, if a soft drink company is funding research into whether soft drink causes heart disease or obesity, the results will hardly be negative against the soft drink company.

I guess It's the same as being given a hypothesis at uni and It's your job to prove or disprove it. Depending on your beliefs, you will only reference peer-reviewed articles that support your beliefs. Similarly, scientists can be bias. They can cherry pick information to support what they believe.

I'm reading an interesting book at the moment written by an American M.D. In it he mentions the Californian branch of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics had their lunch sponsored by McDonald's. Hmmm....talk about a conflict of interest.

When I read articles/studies/Research I always check to see who has funded it and whether they have an interest in my health or are simply protecting their bottom line.

(4channel - 'you' in the above is not meaning you personally, just you in general)

One last thing and it's just my personal opinion. It would be nice for people to learn to disagree not be disagreeable.

---

Good post simone4010 and very true!

Interesting to hear about the MacDonalds sponsorship as well. Yes the cherrypicking can be on both sides of the argument in any health-related debate but as you've shown in the example of Maccas, there's going to be more of a slanting on in favour of industries.

[4channel]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

The European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) reviewed the evidence on water fluoridation in 2010. It concluded that the evidence linking fluoride in water to osteosarcoma was “equivocal,” and that therefore “fluoride cannot be classified as to its carcinogenicity.”

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk.html

Over the past 30 years, expert agencies around the world have reviewed the available evidence on water fluoridation and whether it is linked to an increased risk of cancer. These agencies include the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)(1987)5, the US Public Health Service (1991)6, the Medical Research Council (2002)7, the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER)(2011)8, California's Identification Committee (CIC)9 and Royal Society of New Zealand (2014)10. The consensus has been either that there is not enough quality evidence to draw a conclusion one way or the other, or the evidence does not show a link between water fluoridation and any type of cancer.

https://www.cancerwa.asn.au/resources/cancermyths/fluoride-cancer-myth/

Claims have been made that fluoride is associated with osteosarcoma. The Department of Health and Human Services has collaborated with Cancer Council Victoria to provide balanced, evidence-based advice about these claims.

Epidemiological studies show no clear association between fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma.

https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/public-health/water/water-fluoridation/fluoride-and-osteosarcoma

For the studies that did show a link between fluoridation and bone cancer, it’s important to acknowledge their limitations. In the 1991 rat study, for example, levels of fluoride used in the study were much higher than what would be found in a community fluoridation program.

In the 2006 Harvard University study, there may have been a potential selection bias because of how hospitals were chosen in the study. Also, the number of cases of bone cancer within this age group would have been extremely small. This limits the statistical power of the study.

In 2011, results of the second part of the Harvard study were published. It compared fluoride levels in bones near osteosarcoma tumors to those in bones with other types of tumors. The researchers found no difference in fluoride levels between the different tumors.

https://www.healthline.com/health/fluoride-cancer#the-research

---

Well the_great_she_elephant, there's science on both sides of the argument that say different things. The science which says fluoride is a danger draws on so-called evidence that putting fluoride (( Industrial Waste )) into our water causes health issues. And then the science which says there's no proof of this draws on a lot of studies which says it's inconclusive or no association.

Since the purported benefits of fluoride are topical, there's no need to put it in the water and if one science is saying it's a danger and the other saying that there's no conclusive proof that it's a danger then at the very least we need to have a safe approach to it. Since fluoride is in most toothpastes 90% or plus, let people deal with what they feel the need to deal with by brushing teeth.

Also since a degree  fluoride is absorbed through the skin, how on earth can something that only works topically benefit the teeth? There is concern about babies being fluoridated when mum or dad mixes the infant formula with water, but also a fragile, developing tiny human being absorbing what is an industrial waste through his / her skin is not a good idea.