manxiememe Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Manx Radio - http://www.manxradio.com/readNEwsItem.aspx?id=20580 "DENTIST QUESTION IN TYNWALD Health Minister Eddie Teare says he can’t tell how much money has been spent on children’s dental services – because all dentistry money comes from the same pot. He faced a question for written answer in Tynwald this week from Rushen MHK Quintin Gill. In it, Mr Gill asked how much had been spent on children’s dental services over the last 15 years, and who was to blame for what the DHSS describes as ‘disgraceful’ state of oral health among the Island’s youngsters. Mr Teare said he couldn’t give a figure, but his department wasn’t to blame. Mr Teare said personal choices and lifestyle decisions were the main factors." So, does that mean that mass medication is NOT the answer, and correct PHSE <Personal Health Social Education> (Personal and Lifestyle Education) is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I must admit I have must missed this campaign as central to the campaign I have seen from yourself is basically scaremongering. I may though have miss understand what you believe the ethical argument is. As far as I am an concerned it is whether it is right to add a substance to water which in many places is naturally occuring, is basically harmless in the concentrations added, would improve dental health of children but is not required to make the water safe to drink and would be of little benefit to many drinking it. That is an argument many of those who argue with you in respect of pseudo science and scaremongering might agree with. e.g. ballaugh biker Or is the ethical argument from your point of you that we should not add POISON to the water, and that if we are we are all doomed your teath will go black etc etc Fluoridation removes the right to choose, that is the ethical argument. You have a right to refuse medication and this has been at the core of our position since we began campaigning 5 years ago. Fluoride is a poison, certainly the fluorosilicates used in water fluoridation are officially classified as such. Fluoride has never been proven an essential nutrient. Fluoride at 1 part per million does result in systemic toxicity and can and does result in dental fluorosis, the first sign of fluoride poisoning - this is a matter a fact. The poll has finished, our government have consulted with the people and we will soon know the outcome. I feel though whatever the outcome things need to change within the dental service. Our children have been consistently let down over the past 13 years, as a result we have gone from having the best teeth to the worst and before anything else is done the very least we should do is to start school inspections again and employ a new Senior Dental Officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Erm, I think you'll find that the Government has invested in health education programmes, they just have been effective enough. Tooth decay has (obviously) been a long-term concern, so this is hardly a knee-jerk reaction. I would suggest that it is more an Education rather than a Health issue. From Hansard page 294 In Tynwald last year, Peter Karran MHK for Onchan asked the Education Minister Anne Craine MHK for Ramsey about the sale of sugary drinks in schools EDUCATION Sugary drinks Ban on sale in schools 8. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Education: (1) Do you have the power to ban the practice of selling sugary drinks (including from vending machines) in schools on the Island; and (2) if so, will you do so, in the interest of the children’s dental health? The reply, was little longwinded and seemed to be an advert for how wonderful our Education Department is. The reply was also pretty vacuous as far as the question was concerned and I feel the Minister for Education should have reacted differently. The Minister for Education (Mrs Craine): Thank you, Mr President. Any policies relating to the organisation and management of a school have to be in accordance with the Department’s general directions and the approval of the school’s governing body. This is as stated in each school’s articles of government, made under the Education Act 2001. To this extent, a ban could, perhaps, be introduced. However, the position the Department of Education has taken, through working with DHSS professionals and Manx Sport and Recreation, is expressed in the Department’s ‘Healthy Futures’ document that I have here. This has been endorsed by the Minister for the Department of Health and Social Security, the Minister for Tourism and Leisure and myself. The Healthy Futures programme does not ban any one particular food or drink, but strengthens and emphasises the role of schools in promoting a healthy lifestyle through having consistent policies on personal, social and health education, sex and relationships education, drug and tobacco education, physical activity, emotional wellbeing and healthy eating. A school’s role is to inform and educate, whilst promoting and encouraging individuals to develop the lifelong skills involved in making sensible choices. An outright ban on one particular type of food may not be the wisest policy to adopt when we consider the whole range of other foods which, if eaten to excess, can be equally unhealthy, for example high-fat and high-salt foods. The Department of Education’s policy in this area is twofold: to give young people the confidence, skills and understanding to make healthier choices, and healthy and nutritious food and drink is available across a school day. The President: Hon. Member, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh Ynsee not agree that it would be far better looking at this policy, as far as protecting the dental health, than the fluoridation of the public water supply and would she have the same viewpoint as far as making sure that an outright ban for people who want to have water without fluoride would be on the same commitment as what she is proposing, as far as not banning soft drinks and sweets is concerned? The President: Minister for Education, Mrs Craine. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. The Department of Education has not entered into the debate, as yet – not before the Court – on fluoridation. What I would say is that we look to all avenues whereby we can improve the health of young people, but I have to say, Mr President, that we are only in receipt of children for 40 weeks of the year between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. each day and five days a week, so our influence on their health, in terms of what they actually consume, is minimal. Really, that education we give them has to be taken out into the broader sphere across the community. Little as she may have wanted to appear to concur with what Peter Karran was driving at, I feel she really should think about what the machines in our schools are feeding our children and what excess sugary drinks are doing to their health. After all her Department is "only" in receipt of children for 40 weeks of the year between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. each day and five days a week. Mrs Craine considered that the Department of Educations influence on children's Health in terms of what they consume is "minimal". When there is such easy access to Coke and other sugary drinks, I would suggest the influence is maximal. If that is a word. I work with school children and it seems they can't go a couple of hours without their Coke fix. In my day there certainly wasn't Coke in school and it was a treat when we could afford it. Mind you I have loads of fillings but there again we also had a butcher for a school dentist who got paid by the filling and he did seem to always have the latest sports car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Fluoridation removes the right to choose, that is the ethical argument. You have a right to refuse medication and this has been at the core of our position since we began campaigning 5 years ago. What relevence does the right to choose have for people living in Hartlepool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camembert Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 In my day there certainly wasn't Coke in school and it was a treat when we could afford it. Mind you I have loads of fillings but there again we also had a butcher for a school dentist who got paid by the filling and he did seem to always have the latest sports car. School Dentists have never been paid by the filling. Decay is a problem affecting people of all ages, not just children. As people are retaining their teeth for longer, decay is an increasing problem in the elderly and as far as I am aware, they don't have coke machines in residential homes! How are we going to target dental care for this group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Fluoridation removes the right to choose, that is the ethical argument. You have a right to refuse medication and this has been at the core of our position since we began campaigning 5 years ago. Well you have been pretty poor at getting your core position across as all I have taken from you personally on this web site is that you are scaremongering sensationalist without the either the integrity or intelligence, I am not sure which it is, to put forward a genuine fair anti fluoridation position that might stand up to a moments scrutiny. As I have said before I was an anti, my position I think reflected that of Ballaugh Biker, in that I believe that it is perfectly safe to Fluoridate water as proposed but that there are probably better ways of getting kids to take fluoride than adding it to water. I am generally for the least aditions to water as possible except to make it safe to drink etc. Your stance has driven me from that as I have an inbuilt loathing of pressure groups such as yourselves who cherry pick and mis represent science and facts to scaremonger. I am now a stauch pro fluoridation individual not because I am a strong proponent of fluoridation but I believe that it is bad for society if the tactics adopted by single issue scaremongering pressuregroups such as yourselves are seen as winning the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incandescent Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 So, chinahand what we have obtained from you thus far? You claim an interest in the integrity of science and do not show it. You cherry pick data, dismiss questions, omit unfavourable facts and make misleading statements. Your recent comments regarding the WHO are misleading. You have never answered the important point raised by the WHO concerning the assessment of the background fluoride levels already existing within the environment, so I’ll repeat it for your ease of reference. 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 In support of fluoridation you are by implication, supporting the likes of Dr Emerson. What credibility or integrity can you ascribe to Dr Emerson who, when questioned by a UK Government recognised leading scientist,Dr Mansfield raising the issue of the fluorosilicates, Dr Emerson’s reply was “Garbage!”. In addition when questioned further about the levels of fluoride already present on the Island Dr Emerson replied “We don’t need to know that”. This is a professional disgrace which you are supporting. When you were asked the question as to ‘how much fluoride are you advocating should be added to the water supply?’, there was no answer. Knowing that any dental’ benefit’ derived from fluoride is topical and taking into account the relevant percentage of the total water supply reaching individual water drinkers, fluoridation is completely illogical. You offer no comment on this fact. The percentage of those suffering from dental disadvantages, however distressing, does not justify mass medication, either legally or morally. Those suffering poor dental health are often those whose dietary intake comprises sugar, carbohydrates, and fats, and this is their choice for which others should not have to suffer. You still do not accept the fact that it is to more highly qualified people than you that were responsible for the production of the York Review which did not find any Grade A reliable evidence to support your endless propaganda in favour of fluoridation. The references to which you refer and the York Review examined were based upon Pharmaceutical Grade Fluoride not fluorosilicates. There is a significant difference in alluding to naturally occurring fluoride as having comparability with fluorosilicates which are an acid not fluoride. Fluoride and fluorosilicates – The technical bit Hexafluorosilicic acid is not a pure substance; and it also contains a number of other substances. These include hydrogen fluoride a highly toxic part 2 poison, when added to water hexafluorosilicic acid disassociates and in this process generates even more hydrogen fluoride as well as the highly toxic silica tetrafluoride. Whilst these substances do undergo further reaction in water the rate at which these reactions proceed is not instantaneous and a variety of complex intermediatory products are formed. This is entirely different from the simple process of ionization that occurs when any simple fluoride is added to drinking water. What are the facts regarding the artificial fluoridation substances Fluoride is the term used, and sometimes misused by laymen and scientists to indicate a wide array of substances containing the element fluorine. The fluorine atom is the most reactive of all the non-metal atoms. Fluorine (F2) is an extremely reactive, poisonous and corrosive gas. It reacts with every other element except two noble gases (Helium and Neon). Except for some emissions from volcanoes, fluorine gas does not occur freely in nature. As the lowest molecular-weighted halogen, fluorine displaces the other halogens, such as iodine, which is essential to thyroid and other body functions. Fluoride in its various forms is used to etch glass, ceramics and computer chips; separate uranium isotopes; crack petroleum products; make ceramics more porous; inhibit the fermentation in breweries and wineries; polish aluminium; refine almost all metals and is used in rocket fuels and household rust removers. It is one of the world’s most widely used insecticides and pesticides. The most commonly used fumigant for termites is sulfuryl fluoride (Vikane). 3M recently announced the withdrawal of Scotchgard from the market despite its $320 million in annual sales after finding that the fluorine-based chemical lingers in the environment for years and is found widely in the bloodstreams of people around the world. Fluoride is used in many psychotropic drugs and the majority of generally used anaesthetics (Halothane), in some cases for its toxic properties, in others for its ability to potentiate. Prozac (fluoxetene). Phen-Fen (fenfluramine, the diet drug removed from the market for heart valve damage), and Rohypnol (Roofies, the date rape drug) are three fluoride-based products seen in the news recently, and each of the three fluoride-based products are intended to affect the chemical activity of the brain as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors - the chemical that transmits messages from one neuron to another. Fluoride is not added to water supplies. The public water fluoridation choices include industrial grade hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6), sodium fluoride (NaF) and sodium silicofluoride (NaSiF6). Each industrial grade fluoridation substance requires a substance-specific infrastructure. These artificial fluoridation substances are not the pharmaceutical grade “fluoride” prescribed and dispensed nor is it the “fluoride” found in toothpaste or mouth rinses. “Hydrofluosilicic acid is manufactured by two different processes…the largest production of the acid is a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer manufacture.” CDC Water Fluoridation A Manual for Engineers pg 15. Unsatisfactory response You provided a disingenuous diversionary response in respect of Nobel Prize winner Dr Arvid Carlsson by suggesting his comments were based on human rights/mass medication, whereas he specifically and very clearly indicated that “fluoride is obsolete and against science”. There was no comment from you in respect systemic toxicity, and toxicity/drug facts. Any reference to Dr Connett is either ignored, dismissed, or interpreted incorrectly. Where for example you describe ‘brave Dr Connett taking action against the CDC’ this is not correct, as it is the Lillie Centre taking action not Dr Connett. A reading of the ethics charges presented was presumably not undertaken by you. You have failed to comment on the importance of the change of the more limited remit of the York Review. You have failed to make comment on the important Dartmouth study on the high levels of lead found in children and the possible link with fluoride. This may have significant implications for the Isle of Man where I understand at least one third of the pipes supplying water for domestic users are still lead. Admittedly this is a study the outcome of which is not yet known but it should raise enough alarm signals to justify delaying further fluoridation projects. Under the heading of Inaccurate Generalisations presented to you in my last post, focusing on some specific points made by you, you provide no response. Your latest postings have devolved into political statistics to justify your position. Fluorosis is glossed over as part of a risk/ benefit statistic. On the subject of integrity in science, you do not appear to be alone chinahand. Integrity in Science. Leading U.S. scientists have called on Congress to prevent the next elected president from doing what they say the George W. Bush Administration has done. That would be censoring, suppressing and falsifying key environmental and health research. Serious consequences result when drug safety decisions are not based on the finest and most accurate scientific advice available from experts. More than 15,000 government scientists have signed the statement asking Congress to protect scientific integrity. Interference from the White House is just part of the problem, however. The other factor is industry lobbyists. This group is very influential over government agencies, trying to influence the research that will have impact on their corporations. Unfortunately, these special interest groups are being given access and influence at a high level. Government scientists are having their findings subjected to censorship and misrepresentation. The public as well as Congress has often been deprived of accurate scientific information. The pursuit of science in an open society has had a long and successful run in America. Unfortunately, this tradition has been violated in recent years and the government itself is responsible. The Union of Concerned Scientists has begun tracking the Bush Administration's activities within the scientific community. Amazingly, at least 1,191 scientists who are employed at nine federal agencies have reported that they fear retaliation from superiors if the results of their research are perceived as threatening to corporate or other interests. When certain programs produce research results that are considered inconvenient or negative, they are being penalized by having their funding cut. It's very important that scientific and mathematical research on consumer products be free of influence from politics. This influence will incorporate a bias in favour of the industry. When science is falsified, fabricated, or censored people's health and safety will suffer. An inescapable conclusion The Isle of Man public is being deceived over the ‘benefits’ of fluoridation. The Isle of Man Health Authority or its representatives have failed to provide a proper assessment of the risks and benefits of water fluoridation during the consultation period. The definition of informed consent is being ignored. The ethics and legality of promoting a medicinal product are being ignored. The Isle of Man Health Authority has failed to carry out, or make public an assessment of the existing levels of fluoride on the Island. The telephone poll on attitudes to fluoride appears to be specifically targeted i.e. the young, and is presold in the direction of the answers desired. Marketing and the politically aware are skilled in the psychological art of presenting a problem to elicit a reaction in the direction of the solution they propose. All truth passes through three steps. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third it is accepted as self evident. Arthur Schopenhauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camembert Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 cherry pick data, omit unfavourable facts and make misleading statements. A fair summary of both pro's & anti's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Well you have been pretty poor at getting your core position across as all I have taken from you personally on this web site is that you are scaremongering sensationalist without the either the integrity or intelligence, I am not sure which it is, to put forward a genuine fair anti fluoridation position that might stand up to a moments scrutiny. As I have said before I was an anti, my position I think reflected that of Ballaugh Biker, in that I believe that it is perfectly safe to Fluoridate water as proposed but that there are probably better ways of getting kids to take fluoride than adding it to water. I am generally for the least aditions to water as possible except to make it safe to drink etc. Your stance has driven me from that as I have an inbuilt loathing of pressure groups such as yourselves who cherry pick and mis represent science and facts to scaremonger. I am now a stauch pro fluoridation individual not because I am a strong proponent of fluoridation but I believe that it is bad for society if the tactics adopted by single issue scaremongering pressuregroups such as yourselves are seen as winning the day Well that’s as maybe on this site, but as a group we have managed to get our message out far and wide via leaflets, public meetings and debates between scientifically qualified individuals from both sides etc over the past five years. Because you personally think that you have missed our core message is noted, perhaps I should have had 'you have the right to refuse medication' as my signature. For you to dismiss our arguments on health, safety and efficacy of fluoridation as pseudo science is also a concern, perhaps you should peruse the following link HERE. Whilst I appreciate your constructive criticism I trust that you will at the same time acknowledge the fact that we have had to fight more or less single handed against a definite biased, one sided, pro-fluoride propaganda campaign funded and resourced by the largest government Department the DHSS. After all is said and done I still stand by everything we have put out over the past five years and hope that we have done enough to ensure that the Manx water supply is not fluoridated and that instead government look to recruit the right people and fund them properly to sort out our child tooth decay problem by implementing proper dental health and dietary education and re-introducing school inspections - just as they did in Scotland when they recently rejected fluoridation LINK, after all if Scotland are confident that they can tackle the problem with 5 million people spread across some 30,000 square miles, I'm sure Dr Emerson et al can find the kids having trouble with brushing and diet on our relatively small Island - if not they should leave immediately and let someone else more competent take over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Quoting Schopenhauer! By Zeus' magic tabard, things are getting serious now; Wittgenstein and inexplicably unobtrusive elephant lodgers can't be far behind. I wonder if there's a market for debating society bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Wittgenstein can't be far behind. Never stay up on the barren heights of cleverness, but come down into the green valleys of silliness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Whilst I appreciate your constructive criticism I trust that you will at the same time acknowledge the fact that we have had to fight more or less single handed against a definite biased, one sided, pro-fluoride propaganda campaign funded and resourced by the largest government Department the DHSS. But I see that as the govenments job in a matter such as this to state its case & beliefs, just it was in the speeding case. I expect that as a government they should make a decision and then do their best to explain that decision. I do not see it is propoganda that they seek to get support for thier decision for what they believe is correct. Generally I am actually anti such polls as I believe that the Government should make a decision & stick to it. A poll to be is only required on a major issue where the Govt is genuinely uncertain what way it wishes to go. In this case it knows what it wants to do but does not have the balls to do it in case it is unpopular, such like the speeding debate. I am sorry but at times in all walks of life you have to make unpopular decisions, some of which may be right & some wrong. If those ibn Govt do not want to make those calls then get out ot firing line and get another job. After all is said and done I still stand by everything we have put out over the past five years and hope that we have done enough to ensure that the Manx water supply is not fluoridated and that instead government look to recruit the right people and fund them properly to sort out our child tooth decay problem by implementing proper dental health and dietary education and re-introducing school inspections - just as they did in Scotland when they recently rejected fluoridation No these need not be mutually exclusive. I often read that we should not Fluoridate and instead we do should this or that to improve dental hygiene. My view is that those other steps should be done anyway the question is whether fluoridation is done as well as rather than instead of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 FFS I'm getting very irritated with all this. We elect people to make decisions on issues like this (who have the benefit of the expert's opinions) I don't believe the government is determined to poison the population. Whatever is decided, right or wrong (if there is a right or wrong) NOBODY IS GOING TO DIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 NOBODY IS GOING TO DIE We are all going to die. The only questions are when? and how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 NOBODY IS GOING TO DIE We are all going to die. The only questions are when? and how? You're right. My mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.