Fluoride In The Water

[ballaughbiker]

Hi incandescent , do you live on the Island then?

[manshimajin]

Consent must be based on an understanding by the subject of the nature and potential consequences of fluoridation and its alternatives. The subject must have been informed by health care professionals about all relevant facts, including the risks, which must include a full assessment of the risks related to the individual characteristics of each patient, such as age or the existence of other disease. Clearly, in the case of fluoridation of the public water supply no such actions have been taken or are planned, so no informed consent is possible. Nor has the state the power to take upon itself the right to make such a decision on behalf of the individual.

 

When I read 'incandescents' extensive contribution to the topic, plus the very articulate pro and anti inputs from many other posters, the question I find myself asking is - what notice will anyone who has any decision making involvement actually take of the scientific and personal views being expressed on the thread?

 

Is this something we are just getting worked up about in cyber-space whilst life goes on in the Public Health Directorte and decisions are made ?

[nipper]

Is this something we are just getting worked up about in cyber-space whilst life goes on in the Public Health Directorte and decisions are made ?

 

Correct.

 

This sort of unpopular decision making by the Government is best done in the early stages of the election term because we will have all forgotten this stuff come the next General Election.

 

That is the theory.

 

Except I'm sure this thread will be regurgitated as and when necessary. If the forum is still here that is. And computers haven't all been spammed and bugged out of existence. And our teeth haven't all fallen out, or whatever.

[manxy]

I thought this thread would have been finished ages ago.

 

Just make a decision, yes or no.

 

My vote is No to fluoride in my water, as I use toothpaste anyway

[Chinahand]

Does anyone else find it an irony that the main complaint saveourwater et al are raising against fluoridation is that it will damage teeth, while the World Health Organization [1], US Center for Disease Control [2], the British Dental Association [3] etc recommend fluoridation precisely because it will protect teeth.

 

 

 

[1] The consensus among dental experts is that fluoridation is the single most important intervention to reduce dental caries

[2] Community water fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing tooth decay, and has been identified by CDC as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

[3] The addition of fluoride into water supplies in certain areas could dramatically reduce the levels of tooth decay and give children a decent start in life. That is why the British Dental Association, along with many other leading healthcare organisations, supports targeted water fluoridation.

[bluemonday]

I find it a bigger irony that because people can't be arsed to instill a proper teeth cleaning routine in thier children that everyone has to have a chemical added to the water.

 

Apply the same criteria as the anti smoking faction

viz

We don't want to smell of smoke, we don't want to have to inhale smoke etc etc.

 

Fine

I don't want to drink 'enhanced' water because you're too f*cking lazy to teach your kids how to brush their teeth.

Works both ways.

[incandescent]

Comments are acknowledged from ballaughbiker and manshimajin in response to my recent post entitled “fluoride deception”

Contribution.

 

I presented my case as a parent concerned for the welfare of my children able to observe the object of their psychological discomfort, but unaware until recently, to understand its cause. Having a preference for facts not opinions and concerns for the welfare of others I rest my case on the information submitted.

 

In respect of my residence, why not ask certain prodigious contributors to this thread the same question? My residence misses the points presented, and it is the message not the messenger that should first be addressed.

 

On the subject of whether those ‘in office’ will listen is dependent upon the combined and continuous efforts of all to be heard, and this is a reflection of personal responsibility and integrity. Those we elect to represent us as Civil ‘Servants’ are accountable to us, and if we do not make our issues known they will assume consent to actions they propose which we do not oppose. Politicians are skilled in the psychological art of presenting a problem to elicit a reaction in the direction of the solution they propose. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has recently learned that assumed consent is not necessarily a given.

 

Fluoride continued.

 

On the 5th of October the British Medical Journal published an article entitled ‘Adding Fluoride to Water Supplies’ the authors of which were K K Cheng- Professor of Epidemiology, Iain Chalmers- Editor, James Lind Library, and Trevor A Sheldon – Professor Health Services Research. The article raised the following pertinent facts – In 1983 a Judge ruled that Fluoridated water falls within the Medicines Act 1968 (Section 130) and European Union (Codified Pharmaceutical Directive 2004/27/EC. Article1.2. Consequently, it may concluded that Fluoride as a medicine should be subject to the same standards of proof expected of drugs, including evidence of randomised trials.

 

Ethical – Under the principle of informed consent, anyone can refuse treatment with a drug or other intervention.

 

Trust in the dissemination of evidence.

‘Public and professional bodies need to balance between benefits and risks, individual rights, and social values in an even handed manner. Those opposing Fluoridation often claim that it does not reduce caries, and they also overstate the evidence on harm. On the other hand, the Department of Health’s objectivity is questionable – it funded the British Fluoridation Society, and along with many other supporters of fluoridation it used the York review’s findings selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of evidence in favour of fluoridation. In response to Medical Research Council recommendations, the department commissioned research on the bioavailability of fluoride from naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water. The study had only 20 participants and was too small to give reliable results. Despite this and the caveats in the report’s conclusion, this report formed the basis for a series of claims by Government for the safety of fluoridation.’

 

It should be noted that the York report indicated (on page 6) there were no reliable Grade A peer reviewed studies on the safety or effectiveness of fluoride.

There are a substantial amount of research studies showing that the widely acclaimed benefits of fluoride on dental health are more imagined than real. There is a huge body of research literature on the subject of the effect of the sustained fluoride intake on general health, and this is freely available and in the public domain.

 

Few people are aware that the remit of the York Review was changed from “Studies of the effects of fluoride on health” to “Studies on the effects of fluoridated water on health”. This subtle and seemingly innocuous change to remove from consideration other significant data would without doubt have provided a different result.

 

Duty of Care

 

Evidence indicates that the Isle of Man Health Authority or certain of its representatives are choosing to ignore the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) recommendations to assess the background fluoride levels which are already present in the environment.

 

WHO Statement

 

"Dental and Public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme for caries prevention." - World Health Organization. (1994). Fluorides and Oral Health. WHO Technical Report Series 846.

"In the assessment of the safety of a water supply with regard to the fluoride concentration, the total daily intake by the individual must be considered." - WHO Drinking Water Standards 1971.

Those interested in further research in this area can Google - World Health Organisation background fluoride levels

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health...ls/fluoride.pdf

 

During a recent interview on Manx Radio Dr Peter Mansfield asked Dr Paul Emerson about the background level of fluoride on the Island Dr Emerson dismissively stated” We do not need to know that”. Why not? Dr Mansfield stated “One Fifth of people in the UK are receiving more than the Government recommendations on Fluoride”.

 

Fluorides are cumulative and build up steadily with the ingestion of fluoride from all sources, which include not just water, but the air we breathe and the food we eat, and the body can only eliminate half the total intake. The older you are the more fluoride you will have accumulated in your system. It may be concluded that since there are so many sources of fluoride in our everyday living, it will prove impossible to maintain an average level of 1ppm or 1mg per day as is suggested.

Adding a toxic chemical to our water supply defies logic. For those convinced of the benefits of fluoride wouldn’t it make sense to find out how much we already get?

 

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge and the latter ignorance - Hippocrates

[ans]

In respect of my residence, why not ask certain prodigious contributors to this thread the same question? My residence misses the points presented, and it is the message not the messenger that should first be addressed.

 

That's a no then.

[ballaughbiker]

Of course its a no. That's why I asked it.

 

Usual technique of sad stories of terrible things happening to little children following the nasty men's evil plot to poison us and then swamping us with 'evidence' to back the theories up. The reality of course is other little children being gassed before they're even at school to rip out rotten teeth. If that's not psychological discomfort, I don't know what is.

 

When I read this new contributors post it could have been written by S.O.W. All the arguments are very similar. So, if he's not from the Island, why the interest?

 

incandescent - has anyone of consultant status positively diagnosed that you kids teeth have fluorosis? Who got you to post on this forum? Did you just come across it by accident and thought I'll add my two cents worth or were you asked by a local anti to post? Just interested 'cos it smells a bit kippery....

[incandescent]

Response to Ballaughbiker et al

 

I provide you with facts and you reply with non sequitur opinions. The egregious and insidious comments made in respect of the plight of my children are beneath contempt. To find the ‘evil little men etc’ look no further than your own pen.

 

For you who are implying that 14 Nobel Prize winners and more than 1600 Health care and other professionals are wrong to oppose fluoride it is you and other pro fluoridationists whose identities and credentials should be known for such elevated intellects must be hiding some groundbreaking data yet to be presented. How many papers have you had published?

 

I have lived and worked on the Island, and am currently away, and write of my own free will, my Dentist and a Consultant have confirmed the fluorosis position relating to my children.

 

So Ballaughbiker, next time you get on your ‘bike’ why don’t you head North from Bellaugh and give your body the opportunity to join your mind.

 

“Three things cannot be long hidden: the Sun, the Moon and the Truth” – Buddha

[Sparky]

In the not too dim and distant past I lived in an area of the UK where the water was flouridated. I drink water rather than other stuff, basically cos I'm lazy. Whenever I went to the dentist in the UK I always had to have my teeth scraped no matter how well I scrubbed them and with what tootbrush or toothpaste.

 

Since moving to the IoM, I have got to the point where my teeth look better and every time I go to the dentist I don't have to have them scraped, coincidence? Probably, but worth noting.

 

Adding flouride to the water assumes that all these people with bad teeth actually drink water and not, coke and other suggary drinks. As most of the water we use either gets boiled or used for sanitary purposes is this not a waste of money? Surely, it would be better for the NHS to prescribe to people with manky teeth flouridated bottled water and let the rest of us get on with our dental hygiene habits which are not costing the NHS money?

[manxiememe]

I think if people want fluoridation, then let them have it, get the fluoride drops free from the Government, but if someone doesn't want it, then surely that should be respected, a basic human right.

 

I personally believe is a human right violation to mass medicate the whole island. I feel totally let down by the island I have always lived on, have always loved and been proud of. I don't feel pride anymore, just major concern...

 

I believe the island needs mass dental education, not mass medication. That's just scary.

 

It shouldn't be the health aware people who are going to be most affected by this, those of us who drink tap water, those who do reuse, reduce and recycle are going to HAVE to buy bottled water (without fluoride in if that's possible).

 

If the Manx Government is truly committed to dental health then why can't we get a permanent dentist until November 2008 at the earliest (and yes I am Manx and have always lived here). The Govt needs to sort out the Manx dental crisis.

 

Then the Govt needs to address the problem that the kids /teens with the (possibly) rotten teeth don't give a damn about drinking 2 litres of water a day - 2 litres of Coke, maybe, but not water. if the Govt really gives a damn, then they should buy shares in Coca Cola and Pepsi and get THEM fluoridated, cos that's the ONLY way a lot of these kids are gonna get the fluoride!!! OK, totally unrealistic and unreasonable, but it makes the point. I know, I was a teenager 20 whatever years ago, I didn't drink water and neither did any of my friends. The Govt could have flouridated the water then, wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference cos there was no proper ongoing dental education, and there still isn't. Each person on the island would have their own dentist if this was true...

 

My kids teeth are fine, my teeth aren't. My kids understand that fizzy drinks and sweets do damage your teeth and prefer not to have them, chocolate, that's a different story, lol. In moderation, my dear.

 

Lastly, I think that no matter what we say, do, whatever, the Govt are going to do it anyway, then what to we do? That's what worries me the most...

[ballaughbiker]

Wow incandescent, I had to get my big dictionary out for some of them words.

 

So you've lived on the island. For how long then? If your kids have suffered from fluorosis having lived here then that is very worrying. More facts please rather than esoteric waffle. Explain how I am an evil little man/woman by wanting to spare pre-school children from being terrified by being gassed. C'mon how does that make me evil?, I really want to know!

 

PS Fire any insults you like back at me, I've got a very thick skin. However the worse the insult the more I think you are bullshitting.....

 

Edited to say : Actually if you followed this thread rather than suddenly appearing from the West Midlands you would know I'm an anti-fluoridationist.

[pontiuspilot]

enclosed are the veiws of the British dental association on flouridation.

this information has ben cowardly avoided by SOW and his freinds

 

Fluoride

 

 

Fluoride has long been used as a means of protecting the teeth from dental caries. It can be used in a variety of ways such as targeted water fluoridation, fluoride toothpaste, fluoride rinses, being added to milk, and topical fluoride varnish. This fact file examines the evidence on the use of fluoride as a means of preventing dental caries and reducing oral health inequalities.

 

 

This document is available in pdf format. Click here to download.

 

Summary

Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that has a history of being used as a means of reducing dental caries. It can be brought into contact with teeth in a number of ways such as targeted water fluoridation, fluoride toothpaste, fluoride rinses, being added to milk, and topical fluoride varnish. In some areas, fluoride is added to water as a means of reducing dental decay and tackling oral health inequalities.

 

The evidence shows that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce the prevalence of dental decay. The degree to which caries is reduced, however, is not clear from the data available. Funding is needed for further research into fluoridation and ongoing, high quality monitoring of fluoridation schemes.

 

The British Dental Association, along with many other leading healthcare organisations, supported an amendment to the Water Bill 2003, which is now enacted in England, but is not in effect in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The Water Bill means that water companies are required to fluoridate water supplies where it has been agreed following public consultation.

 

As well as methods of increasing the availability of fluoride – be it through fluoridated water, fluoride rinses, fluoride varnish, or fluoride toothpaste – a strategy to improve oral health should also include plans to incorporate healthy eating advice, identifying sugar-free medicines, improving periodontal health, stop smoking guidance, accessing alcohol misuse, and prevention of erosion.

 

 

What is fluoride and how does it work?

Bringing teeth into contact with fluoride can make a big difference to the standard of oral health in the UK. The use of fluoride has a track record of reducing caries dental decay (caries). (1) Dental caries occur through demineralisation of dental hard tissue. Fluoride works to improve oral health by enhancing remineralisation, therefore protecting against dental caries . The demineralisation of hard dental tissue is also caused by sugars in the diet. It is therefore recommended to combine fluoride with a healthy diet low in sugar.

 

 

Fluoride is a naturally-occurring mineral found in many foods and in water. Fluoride can be obtained through a number of means - targeted water fluoridation, fluoride toothpaste, fluoride rinses, being added to milk, and topical fluoride varnish.

 

Fluoridation of water

The addition of fluoride into water supplies in certain areas could reduce the levels of tooth decay and of oral health inequalities.

 

The British Dental Association, along with many other leading healthcare organisations, supported an amendment to the Water Act 2003, which is now enacted in England. The Water Bill means that water companies are required to fluoridate water supplies where the local community, through consultation, chooses to have it. The previous 1991 Water Industry Act, still in effect in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, puts no obligation on water companies to fluoridate, even if the Health Authority were to request it.

 

 

Why is water fluoridation needed?

Water fluoridation is an effective public health measure in reducing dental decay and tackling oral health inequalities. Tooth decay is a significant problem in the UK and dental health inequalities are widening. In socially deprived communities, as many as one in three children under the age of five will have one or more decayed teeth extracted.

 

What is fluoride and how is it added to water?

Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral which can protect teeth in a number of ways. It makes developing enamel more resistant to acid, it helps to repair teeth during the early stages of decay, and it prevents tooth decay by reducing the ability of plaque bacteria to produce acid. In some areas, fluoride occurs naturally, but other areas have chosen to add it to the water for public health reasons. Fluoridation takes place at the water treatment plant where a solution of fluoride is added into water under close control to adjust the natural level to the optimum for dental health - one part per million (1ppm). The chemicals used for water fluoridation are specifically manufactured to very high quality standards, and must meet Department of Environment purity specifications.

 

How many people receive fluoridated water?

Only 10 per cent of the UK population receives fluoridated water compared with 67 per cent in the USA in 2002. (2) Major schemes are in operation in Birmingham, throughout the West Midlands and also in Tyneside. About 500,000 people receive water which naturally contains fluoride at or about the level of 1ppm, while a further one million people receive water which naturally contains fluoride at a lower level, but which is still considered to confer some dental benefits.

 

What is the evidence that fluoridated water is beneficial?

The benefits of fluoride were first observed through observing patterns of dental decay in areas with differing natural levels of fluoride in the water. Evidence of the potential fluoridation offers for reducing health inequalities may be found from the contrasting levels of tooth decay in areas of similar population mix. In Sandwell the water supply was fluoridated in 1986. Over the following 10 years, the amount of tooth decay in children had more than halved. During the same period Bolton, with a comparable population mix, saw little change in its children's oral health. (3)

 

Over recent years, two major investigations in the UK have taken place - one by the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (4) and the other by the Medical Research Council (MRC). (5) Additional substantive reviews have also been produced in Ireland (6) and most recently Australia (2007). (7) While findings have generally shown fluoridation to be beneficial, and no evidence has been found of any adverse effects, the results have been inconclusive. This raises the issue of a need for more research done in this area.

 

The York review in 2000 confirmed that fluoride helps to reduce tooth decay. The report concludes that the best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce the prevalence of dental decay. The degree to which caries is reduced, however, is not clear from the data available. The report also highlights that fluoride can cause fluorosis. Fluorosis can appear as very fine white marks on the surface of the teeth, only detectable by a dental expert, or more visible white marks on the teeth, and can occur when teeth are exposed to fluoride from 0 months to 8 years old. The York review found there to be a dose-response relationship between water fluoride level and the prevalence of fluorosis.

 

The MRC report concluded that little high quality research had been carried out on the broader question of fluoride and health, and that the available evidence did not allow confident estimates to be made of other possible risks to health or of the benefits of water fluoridation in reducing dental health inequalities. The report found no evidence of adverse health effects of water fluoridation. It made recommendations for further research.

 

In the report by the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council, when answering the research question “Is intentional water fluoridation more efficacious than no water fluoridation in the prevention of dental caries?” it is concluded that the existing body of evidence strongly suggests that water fluoridation is beneficial at reducing dental caries.

 

In April 2003, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Primary Care and Public Health carried out their own investigation, making recommendations that targeted water fluoridation be stated as a legitimate and effective means of tackling dental health inequalities. They also recommend that current legislation be amended to allow the responsible health body to request water companies to fluoridate as directed.

 

The findings of the York review and MRC report mean that it is important that there is funding in the UK for studies of the highest methodological standards and appropriate data standards to determine the size of the effect of fluoridation in the current environment. Moreover, funding is needed for ongoing, high quality monitoring of fluoridation schemes.

 

Does my area have fluoridated water?

The British Fluoridation Society report One in A Million – The facts about water fluoridation, lists water fluoridation levels by Strategic Health Authority (SHA) and Primary Care Trust (PCT). This document can be accessed at http://www.bfsweb.org/onemillion/onemillion.htm. Chapter 7, The extent of water fluoridation, provides this information.

 

Is it safe? What about the health claims in the media?

All major reviews of the evidence, including the York and MRC reviews, found no evidence to support claims that it causes cancer, bone disease, kidney disease or birth defects. Negative media stories often refer to studies where the concentration of fluoride is much higher than the recommended level.

The recommended level in the UK is one part of fluoride to every million parts of water (1ppm).

 

What about dental fluorosis?

Dental fluorosis is a cosmetic defect of the enamel ranging from mild speckling to more noticeable marking. The York review highlights that exposure to fluoride can cause fluorosis. The MRC report found no evidence of adverse health effects, but noted this as an area that requires more research to ascertain prevalence and establish the public's perception of fluorosis.

 

 

What about civil liberties?

In a society where people come together for mutual benefit, there should be a balance between personal preferences versus the common good arising from the lower levels of tooth decay which fluoridation brings. Reducing health inequalities is central to the aims of public health, and water fluoridation may improve dental health across the population, including lower socio-economic groups. A population-wide measure such as water fluoridation also has the potential to improve the oral health of children, who are less able to make informed choices regarding their oral health and therefore more susceptible to dental caries.

 

BDA believes it is important that people have the opportunity to enter into an informed and open debate.

 

 

What is the current situation?

The British Dental Association, along with many other leading healthcare organisations, supported an amendment to the Water Bill 2003, which is now enacted in England, but is not in effect in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

 

The Water Bill means that water companies are required to fluoridate water supplies where it has been agreed following public consultation. PCTs are responsible for considering the dental health of the local population, and whether this might be improved by water fluoridation. If a suitable scheme can be identified, the PCT requests the SHA to undertake a public consultation, in which everyone living and working in the area would have an opportunity to contribute and make their views known.

 

If SHAs decide to proceed with exploring the benefits of fluoridation, before carrying out a consultation, they should consult the water undertakers concerned to determine whether arrangements would be operable and efficient. The response to the consultations will indicate the extent of support for a proposal. In assessing the responses, SHAs will need to consider if they are evidence based and, if so the quality of the evidence, the relevance of the representations to the health arguments over fluoridation, and the nature of the individual/ body making the representations. If the consultation responses in favour of proceeding outweigh all arguments against proceeding with the fluoridation scheme, the SHA(s) should apply to the Department of Health for an indemnity to be issued to the water undertaker. The SHA should then negotiate an agreement with the water undertaker.

 

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the 1991 Water Act is the current position, in which puts no obligation on water companies to fluoridate, even if the Health Authority requests it.

 

 

Is water fluoridation the only measure for preventing dental decay at population level?

No. We suggest that every SHA/PCT should have an oral health strategy which should consider all effective methods to improve oral health locally.

 

As well as methods of increasing the availability of fluoride – be it through fluoridated water, fluoride rinses, fluoride varnish, or fluoride toothpaste – a strategy to improve oral health should also include plans to incorporate healthy eating advice, identifying sugar-free medicines, improving periodontal health, stop smoking guidance, accessing alcohol misuse, and prevention of erosion.

 

References

1. Cheng K K et al. Adding fluoride to water supplies. BMJ Volume 335; 6 October 2007

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fluoridation Status: Percentage of U.S. Population on Public Water Supply Systems Receiving Fluoridated Water. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/nohss/FluoridationV.asp. Accessed 15 January 2008

3. Chief Dental Officer, Department of Health. Fluoridation of drinking water: Letter and Guidance, September 2005

4. McDonagh M et al. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. A systematic review on water fluoridation, September 2000 http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm. Accessed 15 January 2008

5. Medical Research Council. Medical Research Council working group report: Water fluoridation and health, September 2002 http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrec...htm?d=MRC002482 . Accessed 15 January 2008

6. Ireland Department of Health and Children. Report on the Forum on Water Fluoridation, September 2002 http://www.dohc.ie/publications/fluoridation_forum.html. Accessed 15 January 2008

7. The Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation, June 2007 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synop..._files/eh41.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2008

 

 

SOW you don't have a leg to stand on, please go away and let the isle of man get on with making the right choice for it's population.

[Chinahand]

...

 

I provide you with facts and you reply with non sequitur opinions.

 

...

 

For you who are implying that 14 Nobel Prize winners and more than 1600 Health care and other professionals are wrong to oppose fluoride it is you and other pro fluoridationists whose identities and credentials should be known for such elevated intellects must be hiding some groundbreaking data yet to be presented. How many papers have you had published?

 

...

 

“Three things cannot be long hidden: the Sun, the Moon and the Truth” – Buddha

Incandesent, I sympathize with you concerning your children's teeth, but I have quite alot of difficulty accepting much of what you have posted.

 

I have attempted at all times in this debate to deal with the scientific evidence.

 

It is a common trick to associate a cause with authorities but if someone has a Nobel Prize for studying high energy physics, or what ever, then their opinion on an unconnected issue while interesting is no more authoritative than anyone elses. I've attempted to discover who these Nobel Prize winners are, what their expertise is, and whether their opinion on fluoridation is based on an argument that attempts to weigh the advantages with the risks; or one on the principles of mass medication etc. I have totally been unable to find these answers.

 

If you are genuine in your passion for truth you would acknowledge the importance of understanding these positions.

 

And please if you have followed the debate as conducted on the Isle of Man you should be aware of the quality of the "truth" as put out by what I have described as the "anti-fluoridation" mob, and especially saveourwater - distorting, cherry picked, biased. Do you have a fuller explanation of your Nobel price winners position - or even who they are?

 

Ballaughbiker is against fluoridation - mainly (entirely?) down to the moral objection of mass medication - but he understands scientific evidence and for the anti's it is a difficult fact that the consensus opinion of those who undertake peer reviewed research in fluorodation (a serious caveat I know, but who else should people accept to make authoritative statements?) is that once the moral objects are overcome (which are contested) then the scientific evidence shows that the benefits outweigh the risks. It is admitted the risks could be known with better precision, and research is ongoing to do that, but the broad levels of risk ARE known - ie the upper statistical bands - and they are not a cause of such concern to stop such bodies as the CDC, WHO etc recommending fluorodation.

 

I've searched the Pasteur Institute site, the Nobel Institute's site - I can find no relevent statements about fluorodation.

 

I've read alot of the World Health Organization's research - in my mind a organization with great scientific and medical authority - also political authority as they can only hold policy positions that are accepted by their entire membership of 180 odd countries. The WHO does a huge amount of work to help people blighted through poverty deal with poor water quality and that does include areas with excessive fluoride in the water. But for all their work on the ill effects of excessive fluoride they are equally in favour of fluorinating water appropriately.

 

I do not think it is a distortion to say that the World Health Organization's policy is that people should be provided water with appropiate fluoride levels and they highly recommend that public water should be fluorinated between 0.6 and 1.0 ppm.

 

I subscribed and read the BMJ paper you quoted from - it lays out both pro and con positions and makes no opinion. I haven't time to track down the Judge who said in 1983 that fluoride was a medicine, but the fact that this is 25 years ago and fluoridation has continued in large populations throughout the UK makes me think his opinion was in no way binding, or precedent setting. Plus there are genuine difficulties in saying something is a medicine which has been naturally occurring in water in some areas without significant ill effects for millenia.

 

For me I am generally neutral, but I am aware that there is a strong moral argument that it is wrong to attempt to veto something that has no significant risk to myself and substantial benefit to others.

 

So many things in life are down to a weighing up of benefits and risks - it is possible that using mobile phones will result in a child getting leuckimia, its a difficult one, but society puts the convenience of a mobile phone over the lives of a small group of children (I think the current consensus is 5 per year).

 

Your children have suffered from fluorosis - that is sad, but there is a valid argument that caries is just as bad - both may need caps on their front teeth etc. And more people will no longer need this treatment for caries than will need it for fluorosis if water is fluorinated.

 

That is a difficult choice, but Ballaughbiker has made statements concerning deaths under general anaethetic when treating children for bad teeth. I take those comments seriously - caries is a serious disease and social problem and people should have good reasons for vetoing a measure which will significantly reduce this problem.

 

For me this is a simple debate:

 

1] Do you have a moral objection to exposing the majority to treat a minority.

 

2] What is the consensus opinion of those who publish in this area in peer reviewed research.

 

I believe 2] is reasonably clear - reduced fillings, but offset with smaller numbers of fluorosis, where an even smaller subset of which are psychologically damaging [and in looking at that you have to offset the number of children psychologically damaged by caries]. On a risks benefits analysis the scientific authorities conitinue to recommend fluoridation.

 

1] is harder - I understand people's concerns, but I think there is a moral argument on the side of fluorination as well as one against it - which makes me weight 1] less than 2].

 

Much of my time in this debate has been trying to find the wheat in the huge amounts of chaff this issue throws up - Incandesent, Saveourwater etc - why is the WHO, the CDC , the British Association of Dentists etc in favour of fluoridation? Can you answer this question?