nipper Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Although I could be accused of unnecessarily going off topic I would like to point out that the Manx newspapers in the 1940s carried a series of front page advertisements for Craven 'A' cigarettes, showing a pretty young woman smoking. Alongside was simply the caption "For your throat's sake". The advertisements worked a treat I believe and Craven 'A' became one of the most popular brands of cigarette. Perhaps the Government should run a series of similar flouride adverts with a young lass sporting a toothy smile. Alongside could be the slogan "For your teeth's sake". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staaue Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I am trying to keep things simple so those among us with less understanding can follow. As a rule, being patronising towards people only works when you're smarter than them. As a rule, only stupid people have a problem with their IQ..... I haven't called anyone stupid - until now. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staaue Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 "Where do you get the 1ppm from, funnily enough 1ppm = 1mm3 which is 1/1000000 of a litre. Thats 0.001gram in a litre of water, I'd leave the maths to the people smarter than us." staaue, the above quote of yours is meaningless, in what sense could 1ppm( a ratio) Equal 1cubic millilitre (a quantity)? you are rightabout one thing though,you should certianly leave the maths and the logic to some one smart than you at least. the scaremongering about Fluoride toxicity relates to the pure compund of a fluoride salt not the quantities found in water supplies. as for conspiracies, please, if there was a conspiracy and i can't thing for the life of me to what ends such a thing would be undertaken, wouldn't the "conspirators" do it secretly without telling anyone? and not have a public consultation before hand. please enlighten me as to the details of the conspiracy that you seem to think exsists. as far as i can see it is merely an attempt to improve dental health, the only issue is how we go about achieving that aim. i.e. via the water supply or incouraging people to brush thier teeth more. further more staaue, your lack of any chemical knowledge is quite apparent also, this is the main reason for you stance i think, an ignorant fear of the unknown. please learn some relevant chemistry before wading in again, i would be only too happy to guide you in the right direction where you to ask regards Pontiuspilot B.Sc(HONS);M.R.S.C. Thank you for your input Pontiuspilot, I would like to take you up on this offer to quell my ignorance of chemistry. I'm not really that bright on chemistry mate, very astute that you notice; like you say I have absolutely no understanding of this subject. Why do you think 1mm cubed isn't 1/1000000 of a litre, and why do you think ratios and volumes are meaningless with regards to mass and volume.??? I just don't get it. ----------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I just don't get it Four pages into the thread, a dawn of self realisation breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staaue Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I just don't get it Four pages into the thread, a dawn of self realisation breaks. :D Your one liners don't stop do they.. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 Although I could be accused of unnecessarily going off topic I would like to point out that the Manx newspapers in the 1940s carried a series of front page advertisements for Craven 'A' cigarettes, showing a pretty young woman smoking. Alongside was simply the caption "For your throat's sake". The advertisements worked a treat I believe and Craven 'A' became one of the most popular brands of cigarette. Perhaps the Government should run a series of similar flouride adverts with a young lass sporting a toothy smile. Alongside could be the slogan "For your teeth's sake". The government have already started advertising fluoridation in the local press. They have so far had 2 'free' adverts that have appeared in the local press. In the latest advert they prompt the public to "Lobby our MHK's to fluoridate our water. It is safe, more effective than trying to educate children to good oral hygiene and recommended by the World health Organisation". Fair? Unbias? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Why should it be? The government have reached a view, and come up with a proposed policy. The only requirement is that the advisors who gave them the advise and the information they received to make the decision is balanced and unbiased and that they made that decision accordingly. They are now looking to the population to back that decision, which they believe is the right decision, and set out their views accordingly. Why are they expected to give the opposite view point which presumably having weighed the up the evidence they have rejected. I am not necessarily in agreement that they should put this out to a public consultation as either they have the conviction to follow the decision or not. But having decided to do so should they be spending money giving an alternative view point which presumably they have rejected. It was the same with the all Island speed limit issue, they are not looking to give the public a long and detailed finally balanced argument so they can weigh up and come up with a decision and policy that the govt will then follow. That is an abdication of responsibility. They are saying this is our decision and our belief, this is the reason why and by the way we want your backing for it as we appreciate that it may be controversial. I see no reason for them to put an alternative point of view, just as I see no reason when they are promoting any other issue they believe and have a policy for they should promote the alternative. Other wise it would be very confusing. Page 1 Lobby your MHK to Fluoridate water as it will prevent caries. Page 2 Lobby your MHK not to Fluoridate water as the public have a right to water with no additives. Page 3 Lobby your MHK to , Page 4 Lobby not to etc etc. In the latest advert they prompt the public to "Lobby our MHK's to fluoridate our water. It is safe, more effective than trying to educate children to good oral hygiene and recommended by the World health Organisation". Fair? Unbias? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 Why should it be? The government have reached a view, and come up with a proposed policy. The only requirement is that the advisors who gave them the advise and the information they received to make the decision is balanced and unbiased and that they made that decision accordingly. They are now looking to the population to back that decision, which they believe is the right decision, and set out their views accordingly. Why are they expected to give the opposite view point which presumably having weighed the up the evidence they have rejected. I am not necessarily in agreement that they should put this out to a public consultation as either they have the conviction to follow the decision or not. But having decided to do so should they be spending money giving an alternative view point which presumably they have rejected. It was the same with the all Island speed limit issue, they are not looking to give the public a long and detailed finally balanced argument so they can weigh up and come up with a decision and policy that the govt will then follow. That is an abdication of responsibility. They are saying this is our decision and our belief, this is the reason why and by the way we want your backing for it as we appreciate that it may be controversial. I see no reason for them to put an alternative point of view, just as I see no reason when they are promoting any other issue they believe and have a policy for they should promote the alternative. Other wise it would be very confusing. Page 1 Lobby your MHK to Fluoridate water as it will prevent caries. Page 2 Lobby your MHK not to Fluoridate water as the public have a right to water with no additives. Page 3 Lobby your MHK to , Page 4 Lobby not to etc etc. It is not yet government policy to fluoridate the water supply. Government has committed itself to consultation with the public on the issue, to quote Minister Teare: - “I must stress that no decision has been made yet and a consultation will take place in the near future to gauge public opinion about water fluoridation. However, people can only make this decision if they are well informed. To this end, the Public Health Directorate is currently undertaking an objective, year-long information awareness campaign about the facts, both positive and negative, of water fluoridation.” The latest advert contained no mention whatsoever about the negative effects of fluoridation (not even the admitted effect of fluorosis). It used an image of a child with a caption ‘Bring back a smile to their faces’ which is highly emotive and suggests that without fluoridation children will be unhappy and parents possibly irresponsible if they do not support the measure. Adverts are covered by very strict guidelines, especially adverts containing images of children. This advert was blatant, one sided propaganda. It instructed the public to take one course of action, not to make up their own minds on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I have not seen the advert but will refrain from commenting too much until I have seen it. But in general I still have little problem with it as provided the Govt get the information out over the year to the public. I have no problem if at the same time they back a pro or anti view. Or that each advert is not finally balanced. In fact I do not think it can be otherwise because if the Govt did not believe the facts backed one course of action over another they would not be even considering fluoridation. You do not take something to the pubic unless you have a clear view that the facts and information point to a particular general course of action. They have not entered into this "consultation" unaware of the facts or not believing that the facts back a particulr course of action. I am also ambivalent about the whole issue, I understand the apparent benefits and the associated risks. I also understand the unease about additivtes being put in the water. But if I go across to the UK I drink the water wherever I am without any concern that it might be Fluoridated and it would be the same if I moved over there. Provided it tasted OK I would drink what came out of the tap. Rather like foliate in bread if it is in it is in, if it is not it is not and I will not give it much further thought as over a year I probably already drink such water without a thought and I am sure I must ingest many more harmful things over a year. Abdicating responsibility, ignoring that this "might be the thin end of the wedge. Possibly but I will save getting angry until they want to add someting or do something that I find abhorant. Fluoridation is not it It is not yet government policy to fluoridate the water supply. Government has committed itself to consultation with the public on the issue, to quote Minister Teare: - “I must stress that no decision has been made yet and a consultation will take place in the near future to gauge public opinion about water fluoridation. However, people can only make this decision if they are well informed. To this end, the Public Health Directorate is currently undertaking an objective, year-long information awareness campaign about the facts, both positive and negative, of water fluoridation.” The latest advert contained no mention whatsoever about the negative effects of fluoridation (not even the admitted effect of fluorosis). It used an image of a child with a caption ‘Bring back a smile to their faces’ which is highly emotive and suggests that without fluoridation children will be unhappy and parents possibly irresponsible if they do not support the measure. Adverts are covered by very strict guidelines, especially adverts containing images of children. This advert was blatant, one sided propaganda. It instructed the public to take one course of action, not to make up their own minds on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 The latest advert contained no mention whatsoever about the negative effects of fluoridation (not even the admitted effect of fluorosis). I do not expect you to understand this, but here verbatum is the relevent section of the York Report on Fluorosis: Page 39 of the Report 53 of the PDF Increasing the water fluoride level from 0.4 to 1.0ppm, the level to which water supplies are often artificially fluoridated, would mean that one additional person for every 22 people receiving water fluoridated to this level would have fluorosis of aesthetic concern. However, the confidence limits around this value include infinity, which means that it is possible that there is no risk. This is because the differences in proportions were not statistically significant (the confidence intervals include zero). Look at the graphs - you'll notice that the number of people with fluorosis of an aesthetic concern at 0.0 ppm, 0.4 ppm and 1.0 ppm are not particularly different. Looks at the error bars/lines. What the statistics is telling you is that there IS NOT a statistically measurable increase in fluorosis as a result of increasing fluoride levels from 0.0 to 0.4 to 1.0. THERE IS NOT AN ADMITTED EFFECT OF FLUOROSIS FROM ADDING FLUORIDE. YOU ARE DISTORTING THE SCIENCE FOR YOUR OWN ENDS. FLUOROSIS IS A REALITY WHETHER YOU ADD FLUORIDE OR NOT AND YOU CANNOT MEASURE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 0, 0.4 AND 1.0 PPM LEVELS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 THERE IS NOT AN ADMITTED EFFECT OF FLUOROSIS FROM ADDING FLUORIDE. YOU ARE DISTORTING THE SCIENCE FOR YOUR OWN ENDS. FLUOROSIS IS A REALITY WHETHER YOU ADD FLUORIDE OR NOT AND YOU CANNOT MEASURE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 0, 0.4 AND 1.0 PPM LEVELS. I was actually referring to the admitted negative effect 'Dental Fluorosis' that Dr Emerson admits to - is he too distorting the science for his own ends? To quote Dr Emerson: "Please click on the link below and this will take you to a website that hosts a lot of useful objective information about fluoridation including descriptions of the only proven side effect, fluorosis." Dr Emerson's Fluoridation Website LINK For anyone that is interested here is the DHSS advert:- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staaue Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 http://www.cartercenter.org/news/experts/paul_emerson.html Is this the guy that was on the radio, or just a name sake..?? Here's some evidence towards that conspiracy I've created.... Peter Karran, MHK, a former Chairman of the Water Authority warned the meeting that he was concerned that the new water treatment plants were capable of adding fluoride. He said there were questions over the new Customs agreement, and its impact on revenues, and that if cutbacks were needed in public services fluoridating the water could be seen as a cheaper option. http://www.manxherald.com/News/42.html I recall mention of the tanks being built at the new site, why pay for these tanks if you're trying to spend public money efficiently... were they a free-bee It also looks like the Gov't has made it's mind up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 THERE IS NOT AN ADMITTED EFFECT OF FLUOROSIS FROM ADDING FLUORIDE. YOU ARE DISTORTING THE SCIENCE FOR YOUR OWN ENDS. FLUOROSIS IS A REALITY WHETHER YOU ADD FLUORIDE OR NOT AND YOU CANNOT MEASURE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 0, 0.4 AND 1.0 PPM LEVELS. I was actually referring to the admitted negative effect 'Dental Fluorosis' that Dr Emerson admits to - is he too distorting the science for his own ends? To quote Dr Emerson: "Please click on the link below and this will take you to a website that hosts a lot of useful objective information about fluoridation including descriptions of the only proven side effect, fluorosis." Dr Emerson's Fluoridation Website LINK For anyone that is interested here is the DHSS advert:- The key is " advertorial feature" - i.e . the government is paying a local newspaper (with TAX PAYERS MONEY) to tell YOU what to think. In other words if you don't believe the government YOU are wrong. That concept used to be called 'state fascism'. Look up fascism! - we fought a world war against it - won - and are now lying on our backs, getting bullshitted, and letting it happen. 'All hail the state - the state health service we can't opt out of - knows best'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KERED Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Well said, Albert. … and 4 pages into the thread, and people are still not getting the point: Fluoridation MIGHT be good, or it MIGHT be bad, (opinions are divided) but we should be allowed to CHOOSE if we want to have it. If people want fluoride, then can have it in toothpaste or tablets. Also – I for one, am incensed by our Government (lol) once again trying to brainwash the electorate, with its biased “adverts”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Or maybe thet could agree to have it added to the water supply and those that choose not to want it could try bottled water. I agree that it is open to debate whether such things should be added to the water and as I said I am ambivalent. But talk of it brainwashing the electorate, facism etc makes me want to back the govt as such claims are so rediculous as to be laughable. At least Albert is consistent though as whenever a govt proposes anything he does not agree with he accusees it of facism Finally in this debate the beneficiaries of Fluoridation appears to be young kids. I would be interested to know of those objecting have kids or expect to have kids in the relevent age group. I would also be interested to know if those who object on "health" rather than moral grounds if when going to the UK, USA etc they change their policy on drinking water if in a fluoridated area Well said, Albert.… and 4 pages into the thread, and people are still not getting the point: Fluoridation MIGHT be good, or it MIGHT be bad, (opinions are divided) but we should be allowed to CHOOSE if we want to have it. If people want fluoride, then can have it in toothpaste or tablets. Also – I for one, am incensed by our Government (lol) once again trying to brainwash the electorate, with its biased “adverts”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.