Fluoride In The Water

[incandescent]

To Ballaughbiker

 

Well,Ballaughbiker, or perhaps I should more correctly address you as Mr Jeykll or Mr Hyde. When you have finished consulting your Dictionary perhaps you will become possessed of the wit to understand and deal with facts presented. Do not waste anyone’s time with your diversionary tactics proclaiming your anti fluoridation stance.

 

I have always preferred to think well of my fellow man and in your case I am trying not to make an exception, and to this end my communication with you is concluded.

[saveourwater]

Well done Pontiuspilot, you managed to find a dental organisation in a fluoridating country that supports water fluoridation!

 

This will be the same organisation that helped give birth to the British Fluoridation Society Limited – hardly unbiased then.

 

BFS Ltd LINK

 

I’m sure you can find many more organisations that endorse fluoridation, most will have their headquarters in fluoridating countries – surprise surprise!

 

A good question is why do these organisations (mainly in fluoridating countries) endorse water fluoridation? Is it because they are now so entrenched in their positions that they cannot change or is it something else? Have these organisations (especially the likes of the BDA) ever consulted their entire membership on the issue or is the position based upon a majority of the board or other limited number group within the organization?

 

Pontiuspilot I resent your accusation of cowardice, we have ‘always’ linked to both pro and anti fluoridation groups on our website and on our leaflets, and encouraged people to review both sets of information before making their minds up something the other side have never done.

 

Saveourwater Links LINK

 

For a more balanced view why not have a read of these statements from countries that have never fluoridated, or have in the past but don’t now: -

 

 

 

Germany:

 

"Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication." (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/germany.jpeg

 

France:

 

"Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l'Environment, August 25, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/france.jpeg

 

Belgium:

 

"This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services." (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-belgium.htm

 

Luxembourg:

 

"Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs." (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L'Environment, May 3, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/luxembourg.jpeg

 

Sweden:

 

"Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown." (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket -- National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm

 

(See statement by Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the Nobel Laureate in Medicine, who helped lead the campaign to prevent fluoridation in Sweden in the late 1970s.)

 

Denmark:

 

"We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated." (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999). www.fluoridation.com/c-denmark.htm

 

(To read the Danish Ministry of the Environment's reasons for banning fluoridation, click here)

 

Norway:

 

"In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated." (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-norway.htm

 

Netherlands:

 

"From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn." (Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-netherlands.htm

 

Finland:

 

"We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-finland.htm

 

"Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual's right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of "force-feeding" was also mentioned.

 

Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water." (Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.) www.fluoridealert.org/finland.jpeg

 

Northern Ireland:

 

"The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland." (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/Northern-Ireland.jpeg

 

Austria:

 

"Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria." (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-austria.htm

 

Czech Republic:

 

"Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered:

 

* uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)

* unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)

* unethical ("forced medication")

* toxicologically and phyiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor." (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/czech.jpeg

[incandescent]

Chinahand, it would be relevent for your to disclose whether you are writing from the viewpoint of one connected with those interested in promoting fluoride i.e medical, dental or Government in order that an appropriately constructed response to your questions may be presented.

 

From your reference to Ballaughbiker and his knowledge of Chemistry, is this someone with whom you are acquainted, possibly a work colleague?

[Chinahand]

Incandesent,

 

Ballaughbiker's knowledge of Chemistry??? I have read his postings about the treatment of children at Nobels etc I have no other connection what so ever with him

 

I am confused why you think my background is important.

 

I do not work in the medical field, I do not work for the Manx government. I am not a dentist or anything remotely connected with it.

 

I am passionately interested in integrity in science, and how society used evidence to make decisions. I'm scientifically literate and have enough knowledge to use primary sources - and if I see bias and cherry picking I call it whether we are discussing global warming, AIDS 911 or fluoride!

 

If you think I'm a stool pigeon trying to bias this forum for the pro-lobbie I think you need to read my posts - I am a long standing and regular poster to this forum and as I choose to be anonymous that is the only reputation I have.

 

How about you - you never answered Ballaughbiker's questions about why you popped up now - how did you discover this little debate? Random surfing, or a recommendation - and if via a recommendation is the background of the person recommending you worthy of being acknowledged - declaring interests is an important part of reputable science you know!!

[Miss Take]

Chinahand - I'm disappointed in you. I thought you knew better than to try to rationalise with a blatant wind up merchant.

[ballaughbiker]

and to this end my communication with you is concluded

Oh, ok then that's up to you but my communication with you isn't concluded.

Mr Jeykll or Mr Hyde

Well like I said I've got a thick skin so say what you like. Using phrases like this hardly does you credibility any favours. If you had followed this thread instead of just popping up from somewhere off-island, you would know (as intimated by me old China) that I object to fluoridation on my perceived immorality on denying people a choice. I don't believe anyone should be made drink water containing any therapeutic agent other than those rendering it safe to drink. That is my only objection other than the half truths and misapplication of dodgy, cherry picked pseudo-science that one or two anti have tried on us.

 

I have been interested in the science of fluoridation for over 30 years and I've seen plenty of first hand evidence that it works. Just because I object to mass fluoridation on moral grounds does not preclude me from arguing against previously quoted non-science designed to frighten the IOM population to agree to your objections. I think that technique is just as morally corrupt as forcing people to have fluoride against their will.

 

Is that really having dual standards? Well I don't think so but you can think what you like. You suddenly pop up from nowhere with all these big words and I doubt if you are impressing anyone. You have failed to answer direct question regarding your links to the Island so a reasonable conclusion would be that SOW or someone similar has trawled a fluoridated area to find someone with fluorosis to use as an example. I'm not arguing that your kids have or haven't got it. If they have, I'm sorry for them but not half as sorry for some of the terrified kids I've seen over the years being gassed. I bet they wish they had teeth with a bit of mottling instead of going through the real trauma of that.

 

My sincere wish is that fluoridation shouldn't be necessary. It is however and could prevent huge amounts of pain, suffering and expense to a new generation. Water fluoridation could dramatically reduce the tooth decay problem within 10 years and that's all I want. Perhaps Mr Hyde isn't so bad after all ?

 

PS I've only got A level Chemistry and I don't know who China is. I do possess a relevant qualifaction that gives me an insight into dental disease though.

 

edited for speling

[Doric]

pontiouspilot 0

sovethewater 1

[pontiuspilot]

from your post SOW:-

 

"Well done Pontiuspilot, you managed to find a dental organisation in a fluoridating country that supports water fluoridation!

 

This will be the same organisation that helped give birth to the British Fluoridation Society Limited – hardly unbiased then."

 

don't patronise me SOW, you are not in such a position to do so. you being a layman to science.

i put in the full comment from the BDA so that i would not be accused of cherry picking small portions to bolster my argument. this being your tactic. you are also capable of finding this information.why is it not on your web site if you are unbiased.

 

the charge of cowardice still stands, for despite your clam of unbiased reporting your web site is very biased and factually wrong in many areas.

 

BDA giving birth to the BFSL? wether that is true or not i think you are taking yet another leap into the world of conspiracy theories and other such ghouls and goblins.

i would much sooner listen to the BDA on the matter dental health than some one not only ignorant of dentistry, but also chemical science as well.

 

as to "a dental organisation in a fluoridating country that supports water fluoridation!" i really dont see the relevance of your statement. it does not add to your argument in anyway. thin as your argument is.

 

the countries you have quoted it would appear have ducked the issue of fluoridation by hiding behind quasi legal/human rights arguments and avoided making decisions on scientific grounds. the mass medication" argument is a mere red herring, and a deliberate gross over reaction. after all water already has chloride in it. merely one full orbital more than fluoride. (i.e. 1s2,2s2,2p6,3s2,3p5; as opposed to 1s2,2s2,2p5) could that not be considered mass medication on your terms.

the denmark quote is ill informed, fluoride is dosed at levels that are below toxicity.

[pontiuspilot]

pontiouspilot 0

sovethewater 1

 

doric this is not a mattter of point scoring for me at least. the science will win in the end.

although i am a interested to know what aspect of SOW's argument caused you make such a post.

[VinnieK]

There are two arguments being waged here:

 

A scientific argument regarding the safety of fluoride, and a political argument regarding the use of water supplies to distribute a therapeutic substance. Although the two are obviously related, it's important not to confuse the two - that fluoridation of water supplies is safe is merely a scientific statement, it is not an agument for its use, and can't be presented as such (conversely, an argument for fluoridation is not an argument for or in support of science).

 

As such, not all those opposed to fluoridation are anti-science, or guilty of misusing science to justify their own hostility to the idea, and nor are those in favour on the side of science. This is an argument about policy, and although safety must be (and has been) considered first and foremost, it is one that is much larger than that issue alone.

 

Most importantly, however, is that the issue at hand is a trifle. Bar lunatic fringe concerns about brainwashing, the mass poisoning of populations, and angering Godzilla by polluting his water (and any pressure group that can rally under a call of "Water is sacred, help keep it that way" without breaking into laughter has to be made up of lunatics), the argument boils down to this:

 

Are slightly less manky gnashers on kids who can't be bothered to clean their teeth worth pissing about adding stuff to the water - yay or nay?

[triskelion]

As pontius alluded, none the countries listed by SOW have rejected flouridation as a result of medical evidence and instead have done so for the much more sensible reasons of it not being the best way to go about it or concerns over the ethical ramifications of mass medication.

[Doric]

There are quite few letters in the Examiner this week plus Roy Gough has said a word or two in a column but not the letters for a change.

 

And they told us the world was flat.

[cheeky boy]

While you lot have been bickering Straps has done something about it:

 

"The Attorney General is to investigate allegations that information in an official pro-fluoridation leaflet being sent out to the public, is in breach of the law.

 

The claim is made in a letter to the Chief Constable from a well-known campaigner on green issues, who has also called for the arrest of two senior health officials in the Island.

 

In his letter, Graham Joughin cites a section of the Medicines Act 2003 whichdeals with misleading descriptions.

 

According to Mr Joughin, the Act forbids any leaflet which may mislead as to the nature, quality or effects of the medicinal product it describes.

 

The leaflet outlines what the DHSS believes are the benefits of water fluoriodation but, drawing on material on the 'save our water' website, Mr Joughin says it makes a number of claims prohibited by the legislation.

 

He is calling on the Chief Constable to question the senior public health officials responsible for the leaflet, over these alleged breaches of the the law.

 

Mr Joughin has had a reply from Deputy Chief Constable Gary Roberts, who has asked the Attorney General to determine whether there are grounds to investigate."

 

Top Man !

[thebees]

FAN-TASTIC! I love him, he is the greatest! He quietly goes about planting trees & saving our water, great shame that there aren't more people like him. BTW I have 2 children both of them have great teeth and neither have ever lived in an area where there is fluoride in the water - my trick? oh none, they just drank plenty of milk and brushed their teeth twice a day (most days). I wonder how many of the young ones with bad teeth were not born & raised in the Isle of Man?

[Chinahand]

You mean this leaflet - get real, this interprets the evidence in a way understandable to the general public.

 

I love the comment about drawing on material from the saveourwater website - just compare saveourwater's pictures of fluorosis with these ones from this New Zealand site - scaremongering.

 

Normal dental enamel

 

 

Mild white spots on teeth - Mild diffuse enamel hypoplasia

 

 

Mild white spots on teeth - Moderate diffuse enamel hypoplasia

 

 

Moderate white streaks associated with enamel fluorosis

 

I can already here the complaints from the distorters already that this is a "pro" fluoridation website - yes run by the New Zealand Ministry of Health - they are all in favour of poisoning their population. And isn't it wrong of these people not to show a picture of severe fluorosis just like saveourwater does - well they say:

 

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.

 

I ask saveourwater, incandesent etc - why would the New Zealand Ministry of Health lie and distort about this issue? Or the CDC, or the WHO? They all say it is a safe, cost effective way of reducing dental caries.