Fluoride In The Water

[ballaughbiker]

Not sure how saveourwater can take any credit for this; their campaign was based largely on the assertion that fluoride was a deadly deadly poison and we were all going to get mottled teeth. I would be willing to bet a substantial amount that most people voted against purely on the basis of not wanting an additive in the water, rather than having considered any real scientific, medical or ethical ramifications.

 

Quite likely Triskelion. Its a natural reaction to not want anything added to drinking water although in reality they add various things to it.

 

Whilst I've always been an anti (right back to 1976 in Bristol and in the early 90s on the Island) I did not agree with S.O.W and other's scare tactics. Whilst we have got the answer the majority wanted and it's probably best forgotten, I hope that people didn't make a choice based on their 'evidence' of the terrible things that might have happened if the decision had been different.

[Lonan3]

....that said do they still have dentists in schools? 20 minutes once a term or whatever for a dentist to come in and do a a check up - should be compulsory in every school. Takes the responsibility from the parents and makes sure problems are caught early.

I'm not certain but, having nightmarish memories of the school dentist when I was a kid, I registered my children with a private practice which is free to children of school age. They get regular appointments - both with the dentist and the orthodontist - and, as long as we make sure that they brush regularly, they ought to grow up with well-cared for teeth.

It really doesn't take all that much effort, and its one of the reasons why I saw no value in adding fluoride to our water supply.

[monasqueen]

Excellent news - hope it s a long, long time before this comes up for consideration again (preferably after I've popped me clogs).

 

Incidentally, there was someone on the radio this morning, saying something about tea having more flouride in it than treated water, so there's your answer - drink tea.....except, doesn't that turn your teeth brown?

[manshimajin]

Excellent news - hope it s a long, long time before this comes up for consideration again (preferably after I've popped me clogs).

 

Errr - seeing the Irish 'No' vote today on the Constitutional Treaty reminds me of the history there of voting until the public gets the answer right. Maybe the DHSS will be pushing for a re-run?

 

Whatever the cause of the No vote on fluoride I am very pleased that individuals must take responsibility rather than the 'nanny state'. For me personally that was the core issue.

[Chinahand]

I think I disapprove of the way it was forced through - the trouble is the woo brigade has succeeded in spreading its fear and so turned informed consent into fearful lack of consent.

 

I wonder what the data will look like in Southampton in 5 years time?

 

Death in the steets, cancer everywhere and fluorosis in every tooth.

 

I doubt it.

 

A small, but measurable increase in the quality of the areas teeth (even after any increase in fluorosis is reported) and no other measurable effects is my guess - same as LA, Seattle, Birmingham, New York etc etc etc.

[Chinahand]

Hee Hee - saw this and thought what the heck lets ignite a rather old thread.

 

Southampton to Fluoridate its water

 

I would hope a really good set of trials would be done to provide good evidence of the advantages and any ill effects.

 

What did I estimate from the Ireland figures? 100 odd fillings saved against a few additional cases of fluorosis!

 

It would be good to see a really good study done to try to improve the data on this.

[yootalkin2me]

Easy solution to this one is get a reverse osmosis filter system plumbed in to your water to remove flouride and other chemicals that you don't want, you can get them from £100 and upwards depending on the amount of water you use per day......I think flouridation is a woeful and pitiful thing for our government to do and as for our health professionals, they don't know their arse from their elbow...seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, furthermore it doesn't seem to matter a shite what I, you or anybody else thinks our dumb-assed leaders will choose to do what ever is the most fuck witted option and which wastes the most of our money, so I will definitely be getting a reverse ozmosis filter system installed.

[saveourwater]

Hee Hee - saw this and thought what the heck lets ignite a rather old thread.

 

Southampton to Fluoridate its water

 

For those that may be interested in some more detail on the Southampton decision, here's an extract from the latest Fluoride Action Network bulletin # 1049 (FAN LINK): -

 

Scientific shocker in Southampton UK

 

SOUTHAMPTON (UK). South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) voted unanimously for fluoridation on Feb 26th.

 

Approximately 200,000 people will receive fluoridated water in Central Southampton, Lordshill, Freemantle, Polygon, Totton, parts of Eastleigh, Weston, Shirley, Portswood, St Denys, Netley, Aldermoor, Millbrook, Bassett and Woolston.

 

An intense £140,000 "consultation" program to fluoridate the Southampton area, approved in May 2008, ended on Feb 26 when the 12-member National Health Service South Central SHA Board unanimously voted for fluoridation. Their decision is final and the only appeal is through the courts. According to newspaper reports the SHA spent £140,000 on this effort while the Southampton City Primary Care Trust spent £30,000 to promote fluoridation -see The real cost of fluoride (LINK)

 

According to Guardian reporter James Meikle (LINK), "The government has been trying to extend fluoridation for years, having changed the law in 2003 to enable health chiefs to order, rather then request, water companies to add fluoride."

 

The South Central SHA is the first to implement the 2003 directive and Meikle states: "Authorities in north-west England, Derbyshire, Bristol, and Kirklees in West Yorkshire are thought to be among those preparing to press on with similar proposals."

 

• According to the SHA's own survey (LINK) of 10,000 people in the affected area:

"28% said they supported the proposal and 72% were opposed" (page 3)

(see The 'consultation' with only one answer (LINK) by Philip Johnson in The Telegraph)

 

Scientifically flawed consultant reviews by BAZIAN LTD.

 

At the 11th hour, on February 20, critical SHA documents were released to the public. The SHA hired Bazian Ltd. to review the NRC 2006 report and the 18 IQ studies that found an association of high fluoride exposure and lowered IQ in children (there are 23 published studies, but 5 have yet to be translated from Chinese). The SHA did not allow the public to comment on Bazian's critiques.

 

BAZIAN'S CRITIQUE OF THE NRC REPORT:

 

According to FAN's Chris Neurath: The Bazian critique has mischaracterized the purpose, methods, and results of the NRC 2006 review. Bazian dismissed the NRC report as not relevant to Southampton because it relied mostly on studies where the drinking water fluoride level was 2 mg/L or higher. The intended level in Southampton is 1 mg/L. This dismissal reveals a lack of understanding of principles of toxicology and public health policy. Instead of saying health problems from drinking 2 mg/L are irrelevant to Southampton the proper reaction should be great concern because there is no margin of safety. Toxicology and public health policy commonly seek a margin of safety of 100-fold, or at a minimum, 10-fold. Even using a minimum margin of safety, fluoridation at 1 mg/L is 5 times too great to assure safety for all people."

 

BAZIAN'S REVIEW OF 18 IQ STUDIES THAT REPORTED AN ASSOCIATION OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE TO LOWERED IQ IN CHILDREN.

 

Bazian dismissed the 18 IQ studies in part by stating "None of the studies explicitly dealt with artificial fluoridation of drinking water. Instead they dealt with cases in which drinking water was naturally high in fluoride, or high fluoride exposures came from use of high fluoride coal for heating and drying grain." Again, the Bazian consultants ignored the necessity for a margin of safety. The lowest level at which fluoride was estimated to reduce IQ in children, 1.8 mg/L (according to Xiang et al., 2003) clearly offers no adequate margin of safety to protect all the children of Southampton. Whatever the weaknesses found by Bazian in the 18 studies on childhood IQ, they pale when compared to the evidence from the UK and other fluoridated countries on this matter - because the authorities in these countries have never done a single study!

 

• See Chris Neurath's Feb 26 letter to the SHA Board (LINK)

 

• The pdf copy (LINK) of Chris' letter with graph illustrating the NRC 2006 findings for fluoride exposure and health effects (page 4)

 

• FAN's Feb 26 press release (LINK)

 

• Bazian's 49 page NRC critique (pdf): Critical appraisal of "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's standards (LINK)

 

• Bazian's 58 page IQ critique (pdf): Independent critical appraisal of selected studies reporting association between fluoride in drinking water and IQ (LINK)

 

• Links to the key Southampton reports (LINK) and news coverage (LINK)

 

SHA's own document titled: Water fluoridation - the scientific evidence (pdf) (LINK)

by Professor John Newton, Regional Director of Public Health and SHA Board member

 

Issue: IQ studies:

Response: These studies have "not been considered in the consultation document" on advice from Bazian Ltd. (pp 13-14)

 

Issue: NRC 2006 report

Response: This report is not considered in the consultation document on advice from Bazian Ltd. (pp 14-15)

 

Issue: Baby formula made with fluoridated tap water

Response: "It is not a recommendation to avoid fluoridated water." (p 16)

 

Issue: Alternatives have not been tried or not given sufficient attention

Response: "it was assured by Southampton City PCT that they had already assiduously pursued other approaches but that these had not been fully effective." (p 17)

 

Issue: Further research is required

Response: "... The important question is not whether further good quality research would help, but what does the existing research tells us we should do now? (p 21)

 

Issue: Precautionary Principle

Response: "... we do not believe the principle should be applied in the case of water fluoridation in Southampton... The SHA must weigh the evidence of harm (due to dental fluorosis) against the harm of dental caries and extractions under anaesthetic at the rates they occur now if we do not act..." (p 22)

 

Issue: The SHA has not surveyed the current total fluoride intake of people in Southampton.

Response: "... no adverse effects other than mild to moderate dental fluorosis would be expected to be associated with fluoride intake from food, either in adults or in children at the intake levels in the UK..." (p 16)

 

Correction:

In the last bulletin we gave the wrong link for Jennifer Luke's 1997 PhD thesis: The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. It's at (LINK)

[pongo]

Metropolitan Water District of SoCal Sued for Illegal Use of an Unapproved Drug to Fulfill Fluoridation Program

[Lost Login]

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/health/concerns_over_oral_health_strategy_1_3652142

 

I hope the noisy scaremongers are proud of what they have heped achieve with reagrd to the oral health of children in the IoM

[Silentbob]

The mass privitization of dental healthcare has done a shitload more damage to dental health on the Island than anyhting else.

 

I cannot get an appointment on the NHS at all.

[woolley]

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/health/concerns_over_oral_health_strategy_1_3652142

 

I hope the noisy scaremongers are proud of what they have heped achieve with reagrd to the oral health of children in the IoM

 

Certainly pleased that we saw off that arrogant tosser in public health who wanted to poison our drinking water with industrial waste. Staying vigilant though because no doubt he will be back - has to justify his existence somehow. As for the health of children; do they not have parents who can control their intake of tooth decaying gunk? If it's rotting their teeth it's hardly helping their general health is it?

[Nitro]

I cannot get an appointment on the NHS at all.

 

nor me, have been trying for 5 years. I'm still on the waiting list,originally my records were 'lost' when they converted from paper to computers, I have to see the emergency dentist who just rip teeth out or make a temporary repair and then told to see a 'dentist' although that is the point, I do not have a dentist and can not afford to go private!

[Lost Login]

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/health/concerns_over_oral_health_strategy_1_3652142

 

I hope the noisy scaremongers are proud of what they have heped achieve with reagrd to the oral health of children in the IoM

 

Certainly pleased that we saw off that arrogant tosser in public health who wanted to poison our drinking water with industrial waste. Staying vigilant though because no doubt he will be back - has to justify his existence somehow. As for the health of children; do they not have parents who can control their intake of tooth decaying gunk? If it's rotting their teeth it's hardly helping their general health is it?

 

I hope it comes does come back and this time rather like in the breast care surgeon case they make the right educated decision rather than bow to a small noisy pressure group. As for some people not liking that well they can always peddle down to Tesco's and buy bottled water so they can control what they intake.

 

At my age fluoride in the water is not going to affect the health of my teeth one bit, but if improves the oral health of thousands of younsters in the Island the sooner they introduce it the better.

[woolley]

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/health/concerns_over_oral_health_strategy_1_3652142

 

I hope the noisy scaremongers are proud of what they have heped achieve with reagrd to the oral health of children in the IoM

 

Certainly pleased that we saw off that arrogant tosser in public health who wanted to poison our drinking water with industrial waste. Staying vigilant though because no doubt he will be back - has to justify his existence somehow. As for the health of children; do they not have parents who can control their intake of tooth decaying gunk? If it's rotting their teeth it's hardly helping their general health is it?

 

I hope it comes does come back and this time rather like in the breast care surgeon case they make the right educated decision rather than bow to a small noisy pressure group. As for some people not liking that well they can always peddle down to Tesco's and buy bottled water so they can control what they intake.

 

At my age fluoride in the water is not going to affect the health of my teeth one bit, but if improves the oral health of thousands of younsters in the Island the sooner they introduce it the better.

As a matter of principle, forced mass medication of the population can never be justified, particularly when the side effects are poorly understood as they are in this case. Education and better eating/drinking habits will serve the young far better. It might even improve their general health and fitness so that we have a few less lard barrels around the place. Yes to nurturing personal responsibilty and no to nanny knows best. Water is a natural essential of life and it should be supplied untainted. I don't want to buy it in a bottle from a shop shipped from who knows where thank you very much. Put fluoride tablets in the supermarkets or have them given out to the vulnerable by super nanny if you are so keen on the idea.