Fluoride In The Water

[saveourwater]

We don't need to start anything over VinnieK.

 

The Bassin study has been widely reported in the media as evidence of a possible link between Fluoridation and a rare form of bone cancer.

 

We have said all along that until further and conclusive studies have been done it would be wise to invoke the precautionary principle and keep the Fluorosilicates out of the Manx water.

 

You too have cited the need for further studies in your own link and we agree with that point wholeheartedly.

 

This of course is only one of the varied reasons we oppose artificial water Fluoridation.

 

The fact that Dr Emerson has dismissed this relatively new evidence out of hand and (incorrectly) publicly stated that it has not been published in peer reviewed material is, we think very important and relevant.

[ynsheltyn]

Can't be bothered to wade through the pages of pseudo-scientific opinion here.

 

Take it eaaasssyyy!

Its unlikely that any shipping companies would be permitted to carry hexafluorosilicic acid across the sea. It is unlikely that the 'authorities' would allow a road tanker to carry hexafluorosilicic acid through the built up area of Douglas.

 

I once tried to dispose of a 50 gallon drum of the stuff. I was overwhelmed by environmental regulations. The cost of safe transport to a suitable, specialist, disposal point - in special containers, by people in full chemical suits and wearing breathing apparatus, with exclusion zones and blue flashing lights - made me wonder why anyone would want to squirt the stuff into the water supply.

[VinnieK]

We don't need to start anything over VinnieK.

 

The Bassin study has been widely reported in the media as evidence of a possible link between Fluoridation and a rare form of bone cancer.

 

When it comes to science, the media will print any story that promises them a snazzy headline. A small observational study will become a full blown clinical trial, or a piece of crumpled up paper in an academic's wastebin will, with the tender attention of a science editor, miraculously unfurl and blossom into "published findings" if it promises to encourage someone to pick up their newspaper. Go to Bad Science if you want specific examples of why saying something "has been widely reported in the media" is not saying much at all.

 

You too have cited the need for further studies in your own link and we agree with that point wholeheartedly.

 

The source says that Bassin is quoted as saying more studies need to be done to confirm or refute her conclusions. Now, the argument could be made that the existing work on the subject, which does not demonstrate a link between fluoridation and cancer already goes some way to refuting her conclusion. What is interesting, however, is that if you agree so wholeheartedly with regards to the need for further study, you surely can't then use Bassin as evidence regarding the link between fluoridation and cancer - the existing literature points to there not being a link, and Bassin's work is flawed and incomplete.

 

The fact that Dr Emerson has dismissed this relatively new evidence out of hand and (incorrectly) publicly stated that it has not been published in peer reviewed material is, we think very important and relevant.

 

Is it? It's certainly worth mentioning, but that Dr Emerson was unaware of its publication surely reflects only upon himself, not the debate regarding fluoridation. Say he resigns tomorrow, and he's replaced with someone with a full grasp of the literature and who, in measuring up the evidence, is still in favour of adding fluoride to the water supply. What then, with regards to your aims?

[saveourwater]

The Bassin study is worthy of further investigation. Bassin was concentrating her work on age specific groups and found an increased association of 5.16 at 7 years of age.

 

LINK

 

The comments of Chester Douglass were also related to his 'overall' study which was not age specific.

 

The Coalition of US Environmental Protection Agency Unions felt the evidence was strong enough to warrant a moratorium and congressional review on water Fluoridation.

 

LINK

 

If this were just some piece of crumpled up paper in an academic's waste bin do you really think there would have been all this kind of furure over it?

 

Dr Emerson should have known about this study, instead he dismissed it and said it had not been published in peer review material, in short he has misled the public, not only on this but other important areas of the debate including contaminants.

 

Should he resign? That is not for us to decide but the Manx people deserve a public official who will tell them the truth and we would welcome a replacement who can undo the damage he has already done and carry forward and open, honest and frank debate on the subject.

[VinnieK]

The Bassin study is worthy of further investigation. Bassin was concentrating her work on age specific groups and found an increased association of 5.16 at 7 years of age.

 

I know, but the association she has discovered has been questioned, which means that there might not be a causal relation between fluoridation and the incidence of the kind of cancer she and her team observed. You can only rely upon Bassin's study if you can effectively answer the scientific questions and criticisms that have been raised. For instance, does it matter that the study failed to obtain biological markers for the uptake of fluoride in the bone?

 

From what I can see the Bassin study was an observational one, which tends to make it weaker than a clinical examination of the effects of fluoride.

 

The comments of Chester Douglass were also related to his 'overall' study which was not age specific.

 

No they weren't. If you read them they are questions relating to the specific science employed in Bassin's study, not his own work.

 

The Coalition of US Environmental Protection Agency Unions felt the evidence was strong enough to warrant a moratorium and congressional review on water Fluoridation.

 

When Congress or the surgeon general feels the evidence is strong enough, perhaps you'll have a case. In any case, I find it curious that the EPA itself hasn't called for a moratorium, and that it is instead a union representing its workers that has made this call.

 

If this were just some piece of crumpled up paper in an academic's waste bin do you really think there would have been all this kind of furure over it?

 

I was not implying that the Bassin study is such. It was an example of why you can't simply use publication in the media as sustantiative evidence of a paper's validity.

 

Dr Emerson should have known about this study, instead he dismissed it and said it had not been published in peer review material, in short he has misled the public, not only on this but other important areas of the debate including contaminants.

 

Should he resign? That is not for us to decide but the Manx people deserve a public official who will tell them the truth and we would welcome a replacement who can undo the damage he has already done and carry forward and open, honest and frank debate on the subject.

 

You're avoiding the question - I'm sure there are plenty of health care experts who are aware of Bassin's work, but are convinced of the safety of fluoridation. That Dr Emerson was unaware of the study being published (and by the way, being ignorant of a fact is not the same as misleading the public about it) says nothing about the actual subject of fluoridation itself.

[saveourwater]

Dr Emerson is the DHSS appointed 'expert' charged with leading the pro-fluoridation debate on the Island.

 

He was asked to comment specifically on the Bassin work by the IOM Newspapers.

 

He should at the very least have looked up the work and then he would have found that it had been published in peer review material and he would have also found out about the controversy the work has raised in the world of Fluoridation.

 

Instead he dismissed the work and said it had not been published in peer review material. This is misleading to the public.

 

Along with his other failures on contaminants and other issues it is worrying to say the least. We have contacted him regarding all these errors and have asked him to prove what he has said.

[VinnieK]

Dr Emerson is the DHSS appointed 'expert' charged with leading the pro-fluoridation debate on the Island.

 

He was asked to comment specifically on the Bassin work by the IOM Newspapers.

 

He should at the very least have looked up the work and then he would have found that it had been published in peer review material and he would have also found out about the controversy the work has raised in the world of Fluoridation.

 

Instead he dismissed the work and said it had not been published in peer review material. This is misleading to the public.

 

Along with his other failures on contaminants and other issues it is worrying to say the least. We have contacted him regarding all these errors and have asked him to prove what he has said.

 

 

Ok, this is the last time I'm going to ask this:

 

How does Dr Emerson being ignorant of the publication of the Bassin study in any way affect the broader arguments regarding the safety of fluoridation?

 

Dr Emerson not being aware of a paper he should have been aware of is a completely different matter, one regarding him and his professional qualities. It is not an argument for or against the safety of fluoridation, it does not contribute to those arguments, and it is not relevant to those arguments.

[Chinahand]

I am nervous of replying here as it requires people to be reasonable and I very much doubt that saveourwater is capable of being such - but anyway.

 

Even IF there is a measurable link between fluoride and osteosarcoma this will not automatically mean that fluoridation should be stopped.

 

We are in similar territory to the link between mobile phone masts and cancer, or aspertine and my particular favourite colon cancer and barbequed beef. These are scarcely measurable effects. It is a real testament to science that they can even attemt to detect the causes of osteosarcoma when its annual prevelence rate is 5.6 cases per million people in the US and 2.6 per million in the UK. Childhood osteosarcoma is even rarer and in the US with 290 million people there are 400 cases of which 250 are boys. It is by trying to analyse every aspect of the lives of these boys, spread out over the huge geographical and social environment that is the US, that a statistical link has been found. Bassins work is based on 149 cases over 3 years.

 

As VinnieK has this link is observational not causal and needs to be further researched. False positives are a very real risk. Scientists are asking the thousand and one questions that might cause this - could drinking fluorinated water be a proxy for the genuine cause, or are the results simply a statistical fluke. This quite rightly is an active topic of research.

 

Saveourwater makes great play that the work was peer review published. But in the same issue of the journal the Peer review editors also published the caveates that Professors Kaumudi Joshipura and Chester Douglass made that this is preliminary and should not be over generalized.

 

It is interesting that all the criticism is being made Professor Douglass - but Professor Kaumudi Joshipura the Adjunct Professor of Epidemiology at the Department of Epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health co-wrote the cautions. Go on saveyourwater have a go at besmerching Prof Joshipura's reputation.

 

The idea that these two Harvard Professors aren't actively engaged in and concerned about these issues is rubbish. But they are also concerned that people like saveourwater will distort and misrepresent them.

 

What are the risks and benefits of fluoridation? Or using a mobile phone, or having sugar free coke, or having a barbaque. Some we choice, but we cannot choice to be exposed to mobile phone radiation. If the link is real we have to ask whether the risks are worth the benefits.

 

Saveourwater will no doubt say there are no benefits. But a 15% decrease in the number of people who have NO caveties or fillings is important. And even more so the average saving of 2.25 fillings PER person - this link is statistically significant, while the increase in fluorosis when fluoride is added to water is NOT. Balaugh Biker has raised that a certain percentage of those fillings will be done on young children under general anaesthetic - and some will die as a tragic result.

 

This gets to the really nasty difficult issue of costs and benefits. Given the UK prevelence there is one case of osteosarcoma every 5 years in the Isle of Man. The childhood incidence is a fraction of this. There will probably be less than one case every 10 years. I cannot do the maths, but maybe someone can - saveourwater this will help your argument if you can quantify it - but I would expect the results to be something like 1.2 cases per decade IF the fluoride link does exist and is the only cause - something that is highly unlikely - if there was this simple link it would have been seen before; it is far more likely you need to drink fluoride and do something else; or that this link does not exist at all.

 

People are very unusual in there perception of risks - be exposed to mobile phone radiation: no problem - smoke cigarettes, or be exposed to them passively: basically the same. Smoking definitely will and mobile phones might cause a poor little child to be hospitalized with cancer. A prospect parents dread and would claim to do everything in their power to stop. But they use mobile phones, have barbaques and maybe they drink fluorinated water etc.

 

My entire anger at saveourwater is that he/she will not allow a reasoned debate to be conducted. With a proper analysis of the benefits and risks. The precautionary principle has to weigh up benefits as well as risks. Saveourwater, for his/her own ends, trumps about cancer - but ignores the risk of deaths from dental treatment. These deaths happen, they are documented. Who used the precautionary principle to help them.

 

I do not want to turn this debate into an emotive slanging match. Keep to the science and quantified risks and benefits, but it is most difficult to try to have a reasoned argument against an unfair fighter. That is what saveourwater is; and I think that is disgraceful.

[saveourwater]

Ok, this is the last time I'm going to ask this:

 

How does Dr Emerson being ignorant of the publication of the Bassin study in any way affect the broader arguments regarding the safety of fluoridation?

 

Dr Emerson not being aware of a paper he should have been aware of is a completely different matter, one regarding him and his professional qualities. It is not an argument for or against the safety of fluoridation, it does not contribute to those arguments, and it is not relevant to those arguments.

 

We did not ask Dr Emerson about the Bassin study, IOM Newspapers did. They asked him for his comment on the work as it had appeared in an article by the Observer. I assume they asked him about it because the work has highlighted a possible link between Fluoridation and a rare form of bone cancer and because Dr Emerson is proposing to introduce Fluoridation to the Manx water supply so is therefore relevant.

 

Dr Emerson dismissed the work and told the Manx public -

 

"The study has NOT been published in a peer reviewed journal. As research on which the newspaper article is based is not available in the public domain I cannot comment on the reliability of the research or the newspaper article, until full details have been published."

 

This demonstrates ignorance and arrogance and an issuing of misleading information to the Manx public by the DHSS expert when asked a specific question.

 

When coupled with other errors that we have found coming from the same source (Dr Emerson) on the issues of contaminants, and the downplaying of the importance of Dental Fluorosis, and the vastly overestimated benefits of Fluoridation this rings serious alarm bells.

 

Dr Emerson should not make statements he cannot back up. Dr Emerson should not mislead the public, if he does then this will of course distort the debate and confuse the public.

 

This makes it entirely relevant to our local debate.

[Albert Tatlock]

This and the smoking 'analysis' reminds me of another famous Emerson - that Brazilian health minister - Emerson Fitifacti.

[Chinahand]

When coupled with other errors that we have found coming from the same source (Dr Emerson) on the issues of contaminants, and the downplaying of the importance of Dental Fluorosis, and the vastly overestimated benefits of Fluoridation this rings serious alarm bells.

 

Dr Emerson should not make statements he cannot back up. Dr Emerson should not mislead the public, if he does then this will of course distort the debate and confuse the public.

 

This makes it entirely relevant to our local debate.

 

As VinnieK has made very clear this is entirely irrelevent to the safety of fluoidation.

 

Plus if anyone has made misleading statements to the public it is you.

 

You have made statements that are totally and utterly wrong on contaminants, and dental fluorosis. You have exaggerated risks and down played benefits. When it suits you you'll distort the York review findings on fluorosis, but on the benefits from more people being cavity and filling free and the statistically real reductions in the number of fillings needed you are suddenly blind.

 

Dr Emerson is an irrlevence to fluoridation safety and if Dr Emerson should resign and shut up, then so should you. I for one would be very happy for that to be the case.

[saveourwater]

As VinnieK has made very clear this is entirely irrelevent to the safety of fluoidation.

 

Plus if anyone has made misleading statements to the public it is you.

 

You have made statements that are totally and utterly wrong on contaminants, and dental fluorosis. You have exaggerated risks and down played benefits. When it suits you you'll distort the York review findings on fluorosis, but on the benefits from more people being cavity and filling free and the statistically real reductions in the number of fillings needed you are suddenly blind.

 

Dr Emerson is an irrlevence to fluoridation safety and if Dr Emerson should resign and shut up, then so should you. I for one would be very happy for that to be the case.

 

No matter what you or VinnieK say Dr Emerson's errors are entirely relevant to our local debate on the Fluoridation issue, he is supposed to be the paid, trusted official and he has issued misleading statements again and again and again.

 

We however have highlighted risks he has failed to address. We have always said that the Fluorosilicates are contaminated with other extremely harmful substances an issue Dr Emerson has flatly and incorrectly denied.

 

When we have caught him out doing this and brought the matter to the attention of the media and the Manx public you cry 'unfair fighter' and 'disgrace', well sorry Chinahand if pointing out Dr Emerson's errors is unfair then he should nopt have issued them in the first place should he.

[Chinahand]

We however have highlighted risks he has failed to address. We have always said that the Fluorosilicates are contaminated with other extremely harmful substances an issue Dr Emerson has flatly and incorrectly denied.

 

When we have caught him out doing this and brought the matter to the attention of the media and the Manx public you cry 'unfair fighter' and 'disgrace', well sorry Chinahand if pointing out Dr Emerson's errors is unfair then he should nopt have issued them in the first place should he.

Bull - you selectively edited Dr Emersons response on Fluorosilicates - he said in its pure form it doesn't contain these substances and then in a section you edited out went on to discuss the control of contaminants.

 

You quite definitely are distorting the issue by being selective. At the levels present there is no substantive risk from any harmful substances in fluorinated water. You can try and twist that anyway you like, but Dr Emerson was entirely correct in his statements; it is you who have selectively editied and presented them.

[saveourwater]

Bull - you selectively edited Dr Emersons response on Fluorosilicates - he said in its pure form it doesn't contain these substances and then in a section you edited out went on to discuss the control of contaminants.

 

You quite definitely are distorting the issue by being selective. At the levels present there is no substantive risk from any harmful substances in fluorinated water. You can try and twist that anyway you like, but Dr Emerson was entirely correct in his statements; it is you who have selectively editied and presented them.

 

We have not distorted anything.

 

The Fluorosilicates are not going to be added to the Manx water in 'pure from', they come untreated as a soup of liquid containing all kinds of stuff that we have listed over and over again. If anything Dr Emerson has distorted the truth even further by suggesting that they will be added in pure chemical form because this product does not exist and is not what he is proposing to add to the Manx water supply.

 

Dr Emerson has stated that the Fluorosilicates do not contain Lead etc and are simply Fluoride + Silica - this is not the case and if anyone is distorting facts here it is you and Dr Emerson.

 

The Fluorosilicates are added after the water has been cleaned right before they go into the mains so yes there will be an increase in Lead, Aresnic, Mercury plus all the other contaminants we have listed including radioactive materials if water Fluoridation were to go ahead, and it is madness to add these substances after the Ushtey have done an excellent job of purifying the water.

[Chinahand]

saveourwater - you can continue to be a stuck record on this, stuck record on this, stuck record on this.

 

But the contaminant levels from fluoridation are not significant. They are upto 100 times lower than permitted levels - which in themselves are multiple times below dangerous levels. There are clear, well tested routines for checking water for impurities and ensuring they remain at safe levels.

 

As has been pointed out to you multiple times 100s of millions of people have been drinking fluorinated water for over 60 years with no repeatible evidence of ill effects, but with repeatible evidence of reductions in cavities.

 

Many 100s more millions of people have been drinking naturally fluorinated water for many thousands of years.

 

It is a sad fact that people have also drunk, and continue to drink, contaminated water in very large numbers giving scientists a very large data set on the risks of contaminants, plus animal experiments have added to this knowledge.

 

To go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about "Lead, Aresnic, Mercury plus all the other contaminants we have listed including radioactive materials if water Fluoridation were to go ahead" is purely and simply a huge and deliberate distortion on your part and you desrve to be challenged on it.

 

Stop lying and distorting. You are a disgrace.