Fluoride In The Water

[ans]

Gosh, you really didn't read this report yourself did you. An adult told you which pages to look at, right?

[Chinahand]

To put some figures on this:

 

Of the 4069 children aged 8 and 15 surveyed in fluorinated areas only 1 had severe fluorosis and 30 moderate fluorosis.

 

That's a prevelence rate of 0.76% for moderate and severe fluorosis. And 0.025% for severe fluorosis on its own.

 

You really have to put the exaggerations coming from saveourwater into perspective.

[Chinahand]

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.

You really are a fool aren't you.

 

Do you understand the concept of sample size.

 

In fluorinated areas of the Republic they sampled 4069 children. 1 had severe fluorosis, 30 had moderate.

 

In non fluorinated areas of Northern Ireland they sampled 573 people - seven times fewer people. I agree that none had severe or moderate fluorosis, but given the sample size that isn't that surprising. They then sampled a further 1370 people in non fluorinated areas of the Republic - of these four had moderate fluorosis.

 

Your cherry picking of the Northern Ireland figures is irrelevent - you have to look at the entire samples - the prevelence rates are so low that a single person getting fluorosis can change the statistics.

 

Your claims about Northern Ireland being fluorosis free is not justified based on the sample size.

[pontiuspilot]

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.

 

 

i have seen page 19 of the courier, you are scare mongering!!!!

this is nothing more than discolouration in a small proportion of the population.

it is much more preferable to the situation we have at the moment with many children having rotten teeth.

SOW you are a real fanatic, once this has all gone away and we have flouride in the water what will be next, fundamentalist islam? prohibition? ban the bomb? the list for things for you to do is endless.

additionally, you never discuss the main issues you only want to talk about minor semantic points after over analysing your chosen set of statistics.

flouride improves dental health, it is as simple as that.

[saveourwater]

To put some figures on this:

 

Of the 4069 children aged 8 and 15 surveyed in fluorinated areas only 1 had severe fluorosis and 30 moderate fluorosis.

 

That's a prevelence rate of 0.76% for moderate and severe fluorosis. And 0.025% for severe fluorosis on its own.

 

You really have to put the exaggerations coming from saveourwater into perspective.

 

Chinahand you are distorting the evidence here.

 

By lumping in the 8 year old’s (nice tactic) you have reduced the prevalence percentage.

 

Stick to 15 year old’s please.

 

Full Fluoridated RoI total number surveyed = 1958 (not 4069)

 

96 had ‘Mild’ fluorosis that is 5%

 

22 had ‘Moderate’ fluorosis that is 1%

 

1 child is recorded as having ‘Severe’ that is less than 1% obviously because it should be more than 19, so I checked with Cork where the data was compiled and they confirmed that the percentage for ‘Severe’ fluorosis in 15 year old children in full fluoridated RoI is 1%. Notice that 1 child is recorded as having ‘Mild’ fluorosis in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland yet the percentage is set at ZERO.

 

I have not claimed that Northern Ireland is fluorosis free, that is another distortion. I have stated that the more serious levels of dental fluorosis i.e. ‘mild’, ‘moderate’ and ‘severe’ in 15 year old children are only recorded as percentages in full fluoridated RoI when compared against non-fluoridated Northern Ireland.

[ballaughbiker]

Well, pictures speak at least a thousand words and I have to admit that (if I didn't know better) I should be really worried about fluoridation having seen the video. That means S.O.W has done his job really well just like the antis I joined in Bristol in 1974. They know most people haven't the time to study complex research or understand every minor scientific point. People are just too busy. They know most people will dwell on every overhyped risk and they know words like 'poison, 'toxic waste' and 'mass medication' are very emotive and powerful. They know people will be resistant to change and will want the freedom to chose.

 

So back to the video clip. Well it has about as much scientific value as Coronation Street. I don't know but certainly don't deny that it's fluoridation that caused the tooth mottling but is it reasonable to suggest that might be a common occurrence here if we drank fluoridated water? Why would qualified professionals and respected organisations who promote fluoridation all over the world want people to have teeth like that? Come on, I want to know why. In reality what they don't want is to see kids with teeth as illustrated in China's post and that's why they're promoting fluoridation.

 

Whilst I respect your opinion S.O.W. and accept you've done a very good job as an anti., I believe your posts have portrayed a very slanted, one sided, narrow, over hyped view on the negligible risks of fluoridation. You have cherry picked information and mercilessly exploited people's natural insecurity of being told what's best for them. History and proper scientific research proves the opposite view to yours but your soundbites will be the ones that are remembered. Well done!

 

I still don't want the stuff in our water but I cannot let you get away with posting any old shite to justify your scientifically highly questionable standpoint up there on the moral high ground.

 

 

Edited for speling...

[saveourwater]

Both links to the film are now working: -

 

LINK 1

 

LINK 2

[manshimajin]

I still don't want the stuff in our water but I cannot let you get away with posting any old shite to justify your scientifically highly questionable standpoint up there on the moral high ground.

 

 

Edited for speling...

 

 

Yup - frankly you can prove anything if you want to and scare anyone too (just see the 9/11 thread on Manxforums). So I still reckon the fundamental issue is not science but what the government gets involved with and what it leaves to individuals to deal with for themselves.

 

Personally I see no reason for them wasting time putting more chemicals in water - better fixing the cycle path on the prom or resurfacing all the potholed roads, or looking after people with real needs.

[Theodolite]

flouride improves dental health, it is as simple as that.

 

So does:

a) telling Connor and Kylie that they have had enough Coca Cola for the day and

b) making the wee blighters clean their teeth before going to bed.

 

Unfortunately

a) does not lead to a quiet life for the parents and

b) is just too much work and aggro when the parent/s are busy watching telly or writing on computer forums.

 

If only producing children were a more arduous task like changing a tap washer or something then I am sure there would not be this problem.

[jimbms]

No matter what evidence to each side is given the main fact is the individual should have the choice not have unrequested chemical contamination of their bodies inflicted upon them. NOTE THE KEY WORD IS CHOICE. After all the same experts told pregnant women thalidomide was safe along with other teratogens. In fact his was first marketed as being proven safe by the medical profession. It was marketed as a sedative with apparently remarkably few side effects. The Drug Company who developed it and many Doctors stated it was so safe it was suitable for prescribing to pregnant women to help combat morning sickness. So now tell me research and statements by the health services are safe. Yes it was one mistake, but look at the misery it caused; can that risk be taken again?.

[triskelion]

No matter what evidence to each side is given the main fact is the individual should have the choice not have unrequested chemical contamination of their bodies inflicted upon them. NOTE THE KEY WORD IS CHOICE. After all the same experts told pregnant women thalidomide was safe along with other teratogens. In fact his was first marketed as being proven safe by the medical profession. It was marketed as a sedative with apparently remarkably few side effects. The Drug Company who developed it and many Doctors stated it was so safe it was suitable for prescribing to pregnant women to help combat morning sickness. So now tell me research and statements by the health services are safe. Yes it was one mistake, but look at the misery it caused; can that risk be taken again?.

The risk has to be taken again, otherwise there would never be any progress.

[Theodolite]

jimbms, Fair comment, but using such a severe analogy as Thalidomide (I'm not sure if we are even actually allowed to use that particular word anymore?) is playing into the hands of the pro flouride kiddies.

 

They will be introducing yet another 'expert' onto the Government propaganda vehicle Manx Radio Mandate next, to scoff at the very idea that scaremongers are even using Thalidomide as an argument against the mass chemicalisation of our water supply.

 

In an intelligent and thinking society it is about choice.

 

People should spend a bit of time in the public galleries of Tynwald and particularly the House of Keys. Watch the politicians who think they are capable of making for us such decisions as putting extra chemicals into our water.

 

On any Bill that makes its way through the system, watch them wave their hands in the air and say "aye" * to vote with the big boys. Then ask them a few simple questions about what they have just voted on. Other than shallow thoughts and sound bites, most have little capability of simple analytical thinking and understanding.

 

 

Ah well, I hope the Council of Ministers and the Health chappie push this forward as it will give me a reason to once again go to those public galleries. I don't think I will be alone.

 

 

*

I believe these days that they use electronic voting.

[Lonan3]

jimbms, Fair comment, but using such a severe analogy as Thalidomide (I'm not sure if we are even actually allowed to use that particular word anymore?) is playing into the hands of the pro flouride kiddies.

Agreed, Theo. But it also means that we'd better not mention things like the experimental meningitis medicine, Trovan, that injured and killed children more than a decade ago in Nigeria; or the drug Trasylol, used to stem bleeding during open heart surgery, that was eventually linked to kidney failure requiring dialysis and to increased death rates; or any one of the things that were declared 'safe' by medical experts and later turned out to be harmful.

[Chinahand]

There is a big difference between the drugs you are discussing and fluoride. And I understand you are using it as an analogy for science getting it wrong and not for scaremongering.

 

The difference is that these substances were not naturally occuring, and had only been tested on effectively tiny (and restricted) populations prior to their general release.

 

The advantages of fluoridation wasn't invented in some lab - it was observed in natural populations. In the UK the war resulted in evacuees moving from fluorinated areas to non - or vice versa - and dentists were able to see the differences in cavities - and fluorosis to keep things objective! - between kids from the two areas.

 

Your arguments also might have a bit more validity if the IOM was one of the first places to fluorinate - what dangers were hidden by the fact people haven't been drinking the stuff for long periods of time.

 

But the fact is huge natural populations have been drinking both naturally and artificially fluorinated water for millions of years in the case of natural water and 70 odd years in the case of artificially fluorinated water.

 

There is no consistent reliable epidemical evidence that these populations have come to harm as a result of this - any effects are so small we basically cannot measure them.

 

Oh P.S. if you drink Irish Guiness - its fluorinated!

[Lonan3]

Oh P.S. if you drink Irish Guiness - its fluorinated!

No wonder it tastes so disgusting!