Fluoride In The Water

[Lonan3]

There have been many who claimed to know what was best for us.

Once upon a time, people had nothing to trust but their own senses - but there were always things that lay beyond their understanding.

Eventually they learned to turn to their elders for advice - but they soon discovered that the elders were often jealous of their youth and the advice they gave wasn't always truthful or reliable.

Next came the prophets - those who proclaimed that they had greater power and insights than normal human beings - but they were shown to be false.

Then there were the Shamans the wizards and witches, claiming that they could cast suitable spells to sort out every problem - but they, too, were soon seen to be false.

The religious people - the priests and their ilk, had a long run of success by hanging on to their education and forbidding it to others in order to appear wise but, when the people were allowed education, they began to realise that that they'd been betrayed.

Then came the scientists - too late. The world has grown cynical about anyone who claims to know what's best for us!

I do not want fluoride added to the water that I drink or bathe in.

[triskelion]

Lonan, none of that is actually historically accurate.

[Chinahand]

True triskelion, but a reasonable reflection of public cynicism.

 

I view it as a huge problem - and Lonan3 - as a result of this how do you make complex decisions - if you are too cynical to use an evidence based approach then what do you do?

 

Are you really saying you trust your gut (a rather emotional organ) more thousands of researchers working around the world trying to gather evidence on a particular subject?

 

I fully admit they can be mistaken - someone will do a list I'm sure. But are you really saying anyone else can really do better?

[Lonan3]

Lonan, none of that is actually historically accurate.

Only in an Aesop kind of way!

I didn't claim historical accuracy - I was simply using to it point out that a large section of the population has begun to regard 'scientists' with the same degree of suspicion that they employ with the Priests, Shamans and Elders of the past.

[jimbms]

Lonan, none of that is actually historically accurate.

I would say it is all bang on the nail

[saveourwater]

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.

 

I really recommend that people look at Page 19 of last week's Courier, then look up that survey on the net before they accuse us of anything.

 

They will then see what has happened in the fluoridated part of Ireland. The report quite clearly states that in the fully fluoridated areas of the RoI that of 15 year old children 5% have 'mild' fluorosis, 1% have 'Moderate' fluorosis and 1% have 'Severe' fluorosis, yet in Northen Ireland UN-FLUORIDATED the levels of fluorosis for 15 years old's for 'Mild, 'Moderate' and 'Severe' are ALL ZERO! But don't take my word for it go check for yourself.

 

RoI fluoridates at between 0.8 and 1.0 part per million (it states that in the report too), now would you like your son or daughter to be the 1 in a hundred to develop 'Moderate' or 'Severe' fluorosis? Or the 5 in a hundred to develop 'Mild'? All of which would require cosmetic dentistry to 'cover up', and which would require lifetime upkeep by a dentist.

 

Why are the DHSS not telling you this, because they have dowplayed the issue, go to www.saveourwateriom.com and read their stements on fluorosis, then look at the images, including 'Severe' as recorded in the fully fluoridated part of the RoI.

[ans]

Just link the survey already. I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Courier, let alone keep it for more than a day.

[saveourwater]

Just link the survey already. I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Courier, let alone keep it for more than a day.

 

OK HERE

 

Page 78 of 176 via pdf viewer (page 58 of the actual report if looking at page number at bottom of each page) you want to look at the chart at the bottom of the page for 15 year old's (permanent teeth).

 

Oh, and check out the percentages for 'Normal' teeth between Full fluoridated RoI and NI as well. 86% 'Normal' in UN-FLUORIDATED N.I. and only 63% 'Normal' teeth in full fluoridated RoI.

 

Edited to add above bit on 'normal' teeth.

[ans]

The report quite clearly states that in the fully fluoridated areas of the RoI that of 15 year old children 5% have 'mild' fluorosis, 1% have 'Moderate' fluorosis and 1% have 'Severe' fluorosis, yet in Northen Ireland UN-FLUORIDATED the levels of fluorosis for 15 years old's for 'Mild, 'Moderate' and 'Severe' are ALL ZERO! But don't take my word for it go check for yourself.

 

Why do 3% in ROI unfluoridated areas have Mild Fluorosis and why did you choose not to mention this?

[ans]

While I'm at it, why didn't you make any mention of this?

 

There is some evidence in the literature that the prevalence of fluorosis tends to be higher amongst

the more affluent sections of the population. It has been postulated that the parents of children in this

section of society are more likely to be able to purchase fluoride toothpaste and to begin brushing

their children’s teeth at a younger age. The findings of this survey are equivocal in relation to this

hypothesis (Table 3.3). Amongst lifetime residents of fluoridated communities in RoI, the percentage of

children categorised as having ‘very mild’ or higher fluorosis was higher in children whose parents were

not in possession of a medical card for 12-year-olds (16.1% in comparison with 13.5%) and 15-yearolds

(19.0% in comparison with 15.0%). However, for 8-year-olds, the percentage in these categories

was lower amongst those whose parents did not possess a medical card (11.3%) when compared

with those whose parents were in possession of a medical card (13.7%). Similarly, amongst the non

fluoridated groups in RoI and NI, no consistent trend emerges in the association between disadvantage

and the prevalence of fluorosis at the very mild or higher level.

 

Your selective quoting of partial reports to support your case does not strengthen it. It makes you look silly and incompetent.

[Theodolite]

Lonan, none of that is actually historically accurate.

I would say it is all bang on the nail

 

So would I.

 

There needs to be a bit added on the end about politicians and then one about Isle of Man politicians.

 

Oh, and then a highlighted line about our Council of Ministers.

 

I have spent many hundreds of hours in Tynwald, House of Keys and Legislative Council and reading the Hansards.

 

These people are simply not worthy of making decisions on our behalf. They are good at taking around $grand a week though and bouncing about the Isle of Man looking forward to their security and super pensions should they ever fall off the gravy train.

 

I spoke to one Member of the Legislatove Council about a Bill that had just been before the Council. Other than some general waffle he had no recollection whatsoever of any single part of the paper set before him. I spoke to various Members of the House of Keys on the same matter. Their eyes glazed and yet they were oh so keen to go with flow in sticking their hand up in support of Tony's Cronies.

 

In short, I don't trust these people to make an intelligent informed decision. Especially on matters regarding mass medication/treatment via our water.

 

I accept we need them to eat dinners and swagger about and open buildings and make speeches and give Manx Radio interviews. We need a government on the Isle of Man.

 

But who on earth gave them the right to make decisions on what chemicals are added to our water?

[saveourwater]

While I'm at it, why didn't you make any mention of this?

 

There is some evidence in the literature that the prevalence of fluorosis tends to be higher amongst

the more affluent sections of the population. It has been postulated that the parents of children in this

section of society are more likely to be able to purchase fluoride toothpaste and to begin brushing

their children’s teeth at a younger age. The findings of this survey are equivocal in relation to this

hypothesis (Table 3.3). Amongst lifetime residents of fluoridated communities in RoI, the percentage of

children categorised as having ‘very mild’ or higher fluorosis was higher in children whose parents were

not in possession of a medical card for 12-year-olds (16.1% in comparison with 13.5%) and 15-yearolds

(19.0% in comparison with 15.0%). However, for 8-year-olds, the percentage in these categories

was lower amongst those whose parents did not possess a medical card (11.3%) when compared

with those whose parents were in possession of a medical card (13.7%). Similarly, amongst the non

fluoridated groups in RoI and NI, no consistent trend emerges in the association between disadvantage

and the prevalence of fluorosis at the very mild or higher level.

 

Your selective quoting of partial reports to support your case does not strengthen it. It makes you look silly and incompetent.

 

 

The figures from the un-fluoridated areas of RoI are interesting. Don't forget that even those living in un-fluoridated areas of RoI will be getting an increased exposure to fluoride because of all the products made within the fluoridated areas of RoI.

 

The same report states that children in NI brush their teeth more often than those in the RoI, so is it really fluoridated toothpaste that causes the more serious levels of dental fluorosis, as arugued by many?

 

The figures speak for themselves, the worst levels of dental fluorosis occur in the full fluoridated parts of RoI, in fact by looking at the non-fluoridated parts of RoI (but they will be getting an increased exposure to fluoride through other products) you can see that even there a problem exists but in un-fluoridated NI the problem is much smaller.

 

The report is nearly 200 pages long, we could have included all sorts of other data but chose to link what we thought was most important, then we link the actual report if you think that is silly then that's your opinion.

 

Emerson et al would have you believe that you cannot get 'Moderate' or 'Severe' fluorosis at 1part per million fluoride - this report says otherwise and it is from our neighbour country who fluoridate between 0.8 and 1.0 part per million.

[ans]

we could have included all sorts of other data but chose to link what we thought was most important

 

No, you chose to lift the parts that added value to your own position, even ignoring explanations within the document for some of the findings and choosing to attach your own.

 

Sensationalism at its finest.

[Chinahand]

Its an interesting and good report.

 

The only trouble is that it doesn't break down its fluorosis results into minor and those likely to cause asthetic concern.

 

The multivariant analysis on p 67 of the report (p87 of the pdf) shows they lump all readily identifiable fluorosis together.

 

I await the rebutal but very mild and mild fluorosis are rarely identified as a problem by those who have it - see the photos from New Zealand. The York report also had statistically valid results for all fluorosis, but the levels are too low to make statistically confident statements for fluorosis of an aesthetic concern.

 

It is only fluorosis that is an aesthetic concern which will have an impact - and which must be contrasted against reduced numbers of people with no fillings etc.

 

As ans says selective quoting - but beyond that an unwillingness to do a proper cost benefit analysis.

 

You have to compare and contrast the prevelence levels and costs of treating this:

 

 

With the prevelence levels and costs of treating this:

 

 

The latter - severe fluorosis of an aesthetic concern - is much rarer.

[saveourwater]

Brain Grenade server is down at the moment, so for now the info film can be viewed via the following link: -

 

INFO FILM - LINK HERE

 

Ans what are you on? You don't get the more serious levels of fluorosis in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland (they still brush their teeth there you know). Whatever way you want to look at it, it is fluoridated water that is tipping people over the edge and causing the more serious levels of fluorosis.