nipper Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I think that is the point that concerns a lot of people. On Manx Radio Mandate on Monday a pro flouride Dental Expert was interviewed 20080421_ManxRadio_Re_Flouride_clip.mp3 We often see in certain social areas where parents are just not interested, they've got a lot on their minds and the last thing they are going to do is encourage their 3 year old to brush their teeth and for them to be thinking about sugars What can possibly be on the parents minds to make them not interested in the dental health of their children? "Give 'em another can of Coke and a bag of sweets, that'll shut 'em up" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Is it time for a referendum, rather than small sample "consultation"? They had better not! If after ... 1. Paying the wages of 24 MHK 2. and 11 mlcs 3. not to mention office expenses for them 4. and travel costs 5. and airlifting Pam Crowe in 6. and for all the Civil Servants in the DHSS, DAFF, Water Board and Chief Secretary's Office 7. Then paying £10,000 for a leaflet 8. ...which was wrong and needed to be reprinted 9. And paying for a some people to ring up some other people and ask them what they think, when they've asked the question in such a way as it can be only be answered one way. they want to hold a referendum on an issue they should have had the guts to decide one-way or the other in the first place without all this faffing I'll fucking riot. We elect mhks to make these decisions, not make a decision, then spend a year "consulting" us in a way that will get the answer they want so that if it turns out to be the wrong decision they aren't to blame - they only did it after consulting the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doric Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 First of all they take away our nicotine and now they are going to take away our flouride. Where does it stop???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 We elect mhks to make these decisions, not make a decision, then spend a year "consulting" us in a way that will get the answer they want so that if it turns out to be the wrong decision they aren't to blame - they only did it after consulting the public. Yes, but how far should the tentacles of a Public Servant/Politician 'nanny state' extend? Does 'freedom to flourish' mean politicians getting involved in issues that individuals can make up their own mind about? Maybe if forum members feel really strongly about this issue they should read Amadeus' thread http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php...5&hl=IOMSPC That has certainly stirred the pot on complacency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 My children drink loads of water so they will be the ones who end up with fluorosis and all the other associated problems of consuming too much fluoride Bit of an assumption, wouldn't you say? Going back to my old mate Neil (dentist in Birmingham who is nearing retirement age) he reckons he's seen a handful of cases in a professional lifetime. He only thought they might be fluorosis but had nothing analysed to prove it. Having re read all of this thread this morning I think you are using very emotive language in your posts and quoting pseudoscientific sources of alleged dangers to try to frighten the shit out of everyone. Your right and opinion of course but it doesn't make it fact. I wonder who has paid for that big anti-fluoride banner at the top of this page? ballaughbiker anti-fluoridationist on human rights grounds only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutley Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 If the Government decide to proceed with water fluoridation then they would be wise to consider the following: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/reports...0illegality.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 My children drink loads of water so they will be the ones who end up with fluorosis and all the other associated problems of consuming too much fluoride Having re read all of this thread this morning I think you are using very emotive language in your posts and quoting pseudoscientific sources of alleged dangers to try to frighten the shit out of everyone. Your right and opinion of course but it doesn't make it fact. I wonder who has paid for that big anti-fluoride banner at the top of this page? the alleged dangers are no more incorrect than the alleged safety being spun from the other side the coin. it would seem that it can be good for some and not good for others depending on circumstances. almost everyone has the ability to clean their teeth and get their children cleaning their teeth IF they can be bothered to do so???, which in turn would negate the 'need'!! to flouridate the water as the 'necessary' flouride is in most toothpastes. however i doubt it is the case that the government would pay for a system to have the flouride removed from water at peoples houses for those that don't want or need flouride in their water.. in effect the goverment want to put flouride in the water to benefit?? lazy unhygenic people while putting hygenic people in the position of possibly having too much flouride!! it would be quite ironic to end up with stained teeth because you actually bother to clean them in the manner dentists and government have prescribed for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Interesting post WTF. Lets have a look the alleged dangers are no more incorrect than the alleged safety being spun from the other side 'Alleged' and 'spun' seem to indicate that perversions of the truth are being used by fluoridation supporters. Do you really think the BDA, BDHF, MRC, US Center for Disease Control etc and all those research scientists are guilty of spin? What possible motive would they have for trying to promote something that might cause all the ills the anti fluoridationists would have us believe. C'mon I want to know what you think their motives are and why its not already gone terribly wrong? Some populations have been drinking the stuff (at a higher concentration than 1mg/litre) for 10s of thousands of years. Its much easier being an anti of course. You don't have to scientifically prove anything. All you need to is start (and continue ad infinitum) using words like mass medication, poison, toxic waste, cancer, threat to wildlife etc etc hoping that some word association will eventually stick. (It always does of course and is a technique used throughout history by dictators to produce a mindset they want). Add to that some impending doom should someone at the water works accidentally kick the fluoride bucket over and bit by bit you sow the seeds of doubt. Job done. Hey, it doesn't matter if its not true as long as it get what you want. If that isn't spin I don't know what is. As for tooth decay only happening to lazy unhygienic people, well words fail me. You do not have to have any specialised knowledge to work out that's a huge simplification of a very common disease process. I have some specialised knowledge and know its a ridiculous assertion. Of course if you don't want to look any deeper because it may further weaken your already questionable reasoning, well that's your right but it doesn't make it true. As for: it would be quite ironic to end up with stained teeth because you actually bother to clean them Well it would be ironic if it had any truth to it. It doesn't of course but, hey, why worry about that little technicality. I remain firmly opposed to fluoridation of the Islands water supply on human rights grounds only. I do not agree with the majority of unsubstantiated scare-mongering disinformation used by some other antis to frighten the shit out of people to get them to say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 On a lighter note: "The minerals in semen, such as zinc and calcium, are proven to slow tooth decay. And 'sex etiquette' claims you should brush your teeth before and after your intimate encounter. That in itself ensues healthier, cleaner teeth. Also the American Dental Association says that semen cuts plaque better than mouth wash" so if any ladies need some dental help I will sacrifice myself for your needs. NOW ON A SERIOUS NOTE "High doses of fluoride have repeatedly been found to interfere with the reproductive system of animals. Commonly observed effects in fluoride-exposed animals include: oxidative stress, damaged sperm, reduced sperm count, and reduced fertility. According to the authors of a recent study in the journal Reproductive Toxicology: "We conclude that fluoride treatment is associated with testicular disorders, which may be due to induction of oxidative stress in reproductive organs along with possible adverse effects of fluoride on pituitary testicular axis.The detailed mechanism of fluoride treatment on the male reproductive system has not been elucidated and will be the subject of future experiments " (Ghosh et al 2002). Research on possible reproductive effects in humans is limited. Some recent research, however, indicates that fluoride exposure (at lower doses than given to animals) can cause toxic effects to human Sertoli cells and gonadotrophs, reduction in circulating testosterone, and reductions in total fertility rate. The dose at which fluoride can begin to cause these effects is not yet known. " source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/repro/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 jim On a lighter note On a serious note: FAN - hmmm. They're on a mission aren't they and its usually a cherry picking of information to frighten the shit out of people mission. I like this bit: The dose at which fluoride can begin to cause these effects is not yet known Really, so it could (or couldn't) be x2, X5, X10, x1,000,000 (just put in whatever power of 10 you feel like). I'm sure you could find some mad professor to put their name to a certain serum level of tesco muesli that would cause the same effects. Of course they wouldn't know the muesli level which caused all this mayhem to start. Oh sorry for the thread creep there, reading this thread you think only fluoride (at completely unspecified concentrations) has the ability to do harm. Get real, if you drank enough distilled water you could do yourself serious harm. So back to this article, could you just explain why the human race has not therefore gone into extinction in areas of the world naturally fluoridated to , say, 10 or 20 times the proposed dose, 'cos it hasn't. FAN don't seem to mention that..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutley Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Re: the Govt Mis-Information Leaflet - I can't believe how biased in favour of Fluoridation it is. I would have preferred for my tax dollar to be spent putting across a balanced view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Re: the Govt Mis-Information Leaflet - I can't believe how biased in favour of Fluoridation it is. I would have preferred for my tax dollar to be spent putting across a balanced view. Since when did we become part of the USA or did you not mean dollars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 So back to this article, could you just explain why the human race has not therefore gone into extinction in areas of the world naturally fluoridated to , say, 10 or 20 times the proposed dose, 'cos it hasn't. FAN don't seem to mention that..... Isn't the point that there is a difference between Nature putting fluoride into the water and the Government/Public Service deliberately putting it in? There are places in the world where there is arsenic in the water. Arsenic has been used to prevent ageing and to reduce creasing of the skin. Ths could be a real godsend to many of the island's population - so should the Government put arsenic in our drinking water too? (At my age I'd vote for that ahead of fluoride). If people want to take fluoride in the IoM that is their free choice and they should do so - in tablets or in toothpaste form - but not by making the whole population ingest it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Isn't the point that there is a difference between Nature putting fluoride into the water and the Government/Public Service deliberately putting it in? Fluoride ion is fluoride ion no matter which compound it derives from. Fluoride ion has not caused any of the perceived ills of some antis despite being in the water for 1000s of years.That is its relevance in my previous posts. Of course if you don't like that fact you might well try to say its not the same stuff. It is, F- I don't think arsenic is a reasonable comparison. Whilst I doubt arsenic is found "naturally" occurring in many places (I didn't know that anyway) but if it does cure wrinkles (I didn't know that either) then wrinkles never killed anyone or caused a lifetime's pain, suffering or expense. Tooth decay certainly has caused all of those. I believe fluoride is a naturally occurring calcium compound in many parts of the world. Conversely, although some water may (rarely) have arsenic in it but that should be viewed as contamination rather than "naturally occurring" surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Isn't the point that there is a difference between Nature putting fluoride into the water and the Government/Public Service deliberately putting it in? Fluoride ion is fluoride ion no matter which compound it derives from. Fluoride ion has not caused any of the perceived ills of some antis despite being in the water for 1000s of years.That is its relevance in my previous posts. Of course if you don't like that fact you might well try to say its not the same stuff. It is, F- I don't think arsenic is a reasonable comparison. Whilst I doubt arsenic is found "naturally" occurring in many places (I didn't know that anyway) but if it does cure wrinkles (I didn't know that either) then wrinkles never killed anyone or caused a lifetime's pain, suffering or expense. Tooth decay certainly has caused all of those. I believe fluoride is a naturally occurring calcium compound in many parts of the world. Conversely, although some water may (rarely) have arsenic in it but that should be viewed as contamination rather than "naturally occurring" surely? I think you may be missing my point...it is not whether fluoride occurs naturally (both it and arsenic occur naturally in drinking water- the latter in both Central Europe and in India)...it is whether Governments and their agencies should introduce a chemical into everyone's drinking water that individuals can, if they so desire, access for themselves in very easy to use forms. I was brought up ito believe that individuals should take responsibility and accountability for their own decisions - and on fluoride I can do just that by buying fluoride toothpaste without any help from the Government. If the Government wants to do something useful to improve life expectancy and public health maybe they should introduce a 50MPH speed limit instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.