Fluoride In The Water

[Sheriff Buford T. Justice]

When I turn my tap on I expect clean Manx water.

 

LAND of our birth,

gem of God's earth,

O Island so strong and so fair;

Built firm as Barool,

Thy throne of Home Rule

Makes us free as thy sweet mountain air

 

and so should our water be.

[ballaughbiker]

I think you may be missing my point

 

OK, understood with further clarication. If you're arguing that we should be free to choose rather than arguing that fluoride is the evil to end all evils, then I will readily agree with you. We should be able to choose and I am on record as being in opposition to fluoridation of the island's water on this ground alone. There are alternatives which give the same result without having to force this on everyone. Unfortunately toothpaste is not a particularly effective one and history has proved that the people in any population most in need are very unlikely to make the effort to take advantage of any alternatives. So the problem (often denied and trivialised by some antis) goes on and on. We are still gassing terrified 5 year olds in the 21stC and that's immoral as it's preventable.

 

I was brought up ito believe that individuals should take responsibility and accountability for their own decisions

 

Me too and I've brought up my son to think the same. Unfortunately life aint that simple. All disease processes are multifactorial and its a huge (maybe convenient) simplification to blame tooth decay on the 'great unwashed' as another poster intimated. We should be more caring of people in need than being judgemental and intimating "its all your fault mate, tough!" Water fluoridation would benefit the most needy in terms of dental disease and although they would be denied the choice of less pain, suffering and expense and loss of function! I can hardly imagine anyone really wishing all that on anyone, even if it was "all your own fault". What next? denying medical treatment for smokers? Yes, an extreme illustration but no more so than your arsenic example (which I have since found out is extremely rare to find it in drinking water. Only trawling the likes of Wikipedia make it look relatively common).

 

Finally, I think the speed limit example is irrelevant. We've got problem A and problem B. We won't do anything about A because we would still have problem B even though the total A+B problem would be less if we tackled B instead. Sorry I don't think that's not logical or reasonable.

 

My only beef with some of the posts on this thread has been the huge misrepresentation and hyping of the perceived risks of water fluoridation to scare people. Those same techniques were applied in the 70s to the same debate when I was a student in a large UK city. They were effective and the antis know that, which is why the same old shite is being regurgitated 30+ years later here. Just because that technique works, doesn't make it right.

[manshimajin]

I think you may be missing my point

 

OK, understood with further clarication. If you're arguing that we should be free to choose rather than arguing that fluoride is the evil to end all evils, then I will readily agree with you. We should be able to choose and I am on record as being in opposition to fluoridation of the island's water on this ground alone. There are alternatives which give the same result without having to force this on everyone. Unfortunately toothpaste is not a particularly effective one and history has proved that the people in any population most in need are very unlikely to make the effort to take advantage of any alternatives. So the problem (often denied and trivialised by some antis) goes on and on. We are still gassing terrified 5 year olds in the 21stC and that's immoral as it's preventable.

 

I was brought up ito believe that individuals should take responsibility and accountability for their own decisions

 

Me too and I've brought up my son to think the same. Unfortunately life aint that simple. All disease processes are multifactorial and its a huge (maybe convenient) simplification to blame tooth decay on the 'great unwashed' as another poster intimated. We should be more caring of people in need than being judgemental and intimating "its all your fault mate, tough!" Water fluoridation would benefit the most needy in terms of dental disease and although they would be denied the choice of less pain, suffering and expense and loss of function! I can hardly imagine anyone really wishing all that on anyone, even if it was "all your own fault". What next? denying medical treatment for smokers? Yes, an extreme illustration but no more so than your arsenic example (which I have since found out is extremely rare to find it in drinking water. Only trawling the likes of Wikipedia make it look relatively common).

 

Finally, I think the speed limit example is irrelevant. We've got problem A and problem B. We won't do anything about A because we would still have problem B even though the total A+B problem would be less if we tackled B instead. Sorry I don't think that's not logical or reasonable.

 

My only beef with some of the posts on this thread has been the huge misrepresentation and hyping of the perceived risks of water fluoridation to scare people. Those same techniques were applied in the 70s to the same debate when I was a student in a large UK city. They were effective and the antis know that, which is why the same old shite is being regurgitated 30+ years later here. Just because that technique works, doesn't make it right.

 

Thanks for your reply. We are in part saying the same thing - there are some things that we can choose to do for ourselves - in which case it's better for government to quietly bow out.

 

You say that "we should be more caring of people in need" - there is no way I would argue with you on that. My only thought is - should the whole population have to have its water fluoridated for the benefit of one sector of the community if there are reaonable alternatives that address their needs directly?

 

I recognise that some parents will not take care of their children's dental health - but there is only so much a society or a government can or should do to compensate for parents own behaviour. It is a matter of where that particular line should be drawn - and I guess where the population wishes it to be drawn.

 

My reason for mentioning the speed limit was to point up that if the government wishes to interfere somewhere in all our lives to improve public health then logically road deaths and injuries should be a higher priority than teeth - ie if Problem A is bigger than Problem B deal with Problem A first...to that extent I think it is a relevant argument

 

But my selfish perspective is for them to (please) leave both A and B alone and let me make up my own mind how fast I speed around the island and what I drink in water.

[triskelion]

Christ, you two are effectively arguing about what colour the sky is! Though on the other hand, the nauanced positions you are taking on the same side of the debate are refreshing

 

Though on the speed limit thing, surely you could extend the 'people deserve the right to choose' argument to the judgement of a safe individual driving speed?

[Declan]

The difference with speed limits is if someone makes the wrong "judgment of a safe individual driving speed" they may hit someone else.

[VinnieK]

The difference with speed limits is if someone makes the wrong "judgment of a safe individual driving speed" they may hit someone else.

 

Aye. Generally I'd trust someone to make their kids brush their gnashers, without being too concerned if they don't. The same can't be said for people behind the wheel.

[triskelion]

Would the same not also be true with a speed limit in place?

[saveourwater]

URGENT INFORMATION

 

If you do not want your water to be fluoridated please click on the link below and press play to watch a short info film. Feel free to send the link to anyone else that may want to see it.

 

INFO FILM LINK - CLICK HERE THEN PRESS PLAY

[Chinahand]

But when linking to Saveourwater's films please be aware of its likely accuracy and note the opinion of the Isle of Man Medical Executive Committee:

 

The Chairman of the Isle of Man Medical Executive Committee says it fully backs plans to fluoridate the Island's water supply.

 

Bob Fayle feels there has been a lot of anti-fluoridation publicity recently and the association wants to put the medical profession's views across to the public and politicians.

 

According to Mr Fayle, research shows water fluoridation is a safe and effective way of preventing tooth decay

[jimbms]

I think the point is that it should be an individuals choice in what is added to their water as far as chemicals to which there is even the slightest doubt as to its safety goes. As for the quote "According to Mr Fayle, research shows water fluoridation is a safe and effective way of preventing tooth decay" I shall add a version of what another put. When considering the opinion of the Isle of Man Medical Executive Committee and Mr Fayleplease be aware of its likely accuracy and note the opinion of the Isle of Man anti flouridisation group as well as many other groups worldwide, also consider the new research showing it may be illegal to add such chemicals without the consent of the end user:

[pontiuspilot]

URGENT INFORMATION

 

If you do not want your water to be fluoridated please click on the link below and press play to watch a short info film. Feel free to send the link to anyone else that may want to see it.

 

INFO FILM LINK - CLICK HERE THEN PRESS PLAY

 

SOW your scare mongering propoganda machine has gone into overdrive. i did warn you against this some time back.

you are distorting the facts far beyond the relms of reason. you seem to imagine that dental flourosis is the new black death. those picture could be from anywhere. who is to say that they have anything to do with a 1ppm Flouride content in the water. and as for that video, it is just desperate rubbish.

some fluoride compounds are poisonous, but so are many hundreds of other things that we eat and drink. the key to the issue is concentration. 1 ppm of flouride is harmless.

you did not listen to a single word i told you on this subject.

i said before i had no strong opinion on this, but now that i am aware of the state of dental health among the children over here i think it would be criminal not to try and do something about it.

flouridation is a good and useful tool in achieving better dental health. don't get me wrong it is not he whole answer, more dentist are also needed. but we have to start some where.

[saveourwater]

SOW your scare mongering propoganda machine has gone into overdrive. i did warn you against this some time back.

you are distorting the facts far beyond the relms of reason. you seem to imagine that dental flourosis is the new black death. those picture could be from anywhere. who is to say that they have anything to do with a 1ppm Flouride content in the water. and as for that video, it is just desperate rubbish.

some fluoride compounds are poisonous, but so are many hundreds of other things that we eat and drink. the key to the issue is concentration. 1 ppm of flouride is harmless.

you did not listen to a single word i told you on this subject.

i said before i had no strong opinion on this, but now that i am aware of the state of dental health among the children over here i think it would be criminal not to try and do something about it.

flouridation is a good and useful tool in achieving better dental health. don't get me wrong it is not he whole answer, more dentist are also needed. but we have to start some where.

 

The images in our info film (and on our website www.saveourwateriom.com) are a result of water fluoridation. Yes that's right water fluoridation can cause even the more serious levels of dental fluorosis categorised as 'Mild', 'Moderate' and 'Severe'.

 

Have a look at last week's Courier - Page 19 for information on where we obtained this data and then go check for yourself, IOM Newspapers did and their legal department were happy to print our advert.

 

The first images that flash up are official Dean Index images of the varying levels of fluorosis, the last one is from Eire and Eire fluoridates at between 0.8 and 1.0 part per million.

 

We are not scaremongering, the DHSS are downplaying the seriousness of dental fluorosis.

[triskelion]

It has recently come to my attention that, for years, water has contained a number of dangerous chemicals of which the Government has done little to inform us.

 

The first of these hydrogen, is extremely explosive, as anyone who has seen a cartoon reproduction of the Hindenburg disaster will know. When will those bastards in the wedding cake realise that just because something is the most common substance in the entire universe, it is not necessarily safe for us to consume.

 

Secondly, oxygen is also regularly found within the very same water supply we presumed so fresh AS NATURE INTENDED. Oxygen, for those that have not read the reactionary literature or seen the propaganda films on youTube, is a highly corrosive chemical (Just look what is does to IRON!) that is also required for combustion and is heavily used in the manufacturing of STEEL!

 

It is time our over-paid 'politicians,' with their travel allowances and bad skin, were brought to account and made to take action to prevent these harmful chemicals from entering the water supply of ourselves, our children and (God-forbid!) our childrens' children ad infinum.

 

http://www.saveourwaterfromnazis.com

[ballaughbiker]

Am I the only person not getting the link to work? I wanted to watch it with an open mind (which would require grim determination if the majority of saveourwater's previous posts are anything to go by.)

[Chinahand]

We are not scaremongering, the DHSS are downplaying the seriousness of dental fluorosis.

Bull - as you have done again and again you are ignoring and distorting evidence.

 

The York Report shows that any increase in fluorosis as a result of changing from low/no fluoride to fluorination at 1.0ppm is so low as to be NOT statistically measurable.

 

You have had this pointed out to you repeatedly, but you ignore this fact and just carry on with your distortions.

 

This New Zealand site shows the science on fluoridation.

 

As ever your propoganda is grossly distorting. I really recommend looking at the site and the photos they show - they won't hotlink!! - then compare these with the ones saveourwater is using - scaremonger.

 

Enamel fluorosis

 

Tooth enamel fluorosis is one of a range of changes to tooth enamel. Living in an area with fluoridated water can increase the mild white flecks or streaks in the tooth enamel.

 

The following photos provide examples of normal teeth and the types of mild to moderate diffuse enamel fluorosis that is most commonly associated with water fluoridation. The most recent New Zealand information indicates that about 29 percent of 9-year-old children in Southland who had always received fluoridated water had these changes to the tooth enamel. This level had not changed since several earlier studies undertaken in the 1980s.

 

Other defects on teeth

 

Severe enamel fluorosis involves brownish defects to the tooth enamel which may also be pitted.

 

This form of enamel defect is uncommon in New Zealand. The most recent New Zealand information from 9-year-old children in Southland indicates that about 5 percent of children had similar defects.

 

These defects were just as common in children who had received fluoridated water as non-fluoridated water and the level of these defects had decreased about three fold from about 15 percent of children in the mid-1980s.