VinnieK Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 No matter what you or VinnieK say Dr Emerson's errors are entirely relevant to our local debate on the Fluoridation issue It really isn't, it's part of a separate debate that is at best tenuously related to the one regarding the fluoridation issue. These debates are: 1. Is fluoridation safe? Dr Emerson could say that the sky is green and that consuming fluoride gives people the strength of ten tigers, but this would have no bearing on the issue of whether or not fluoridation is actually safe, which is a matter for the medical literature - whatever he happens to say does not change the reality of the situation one way or the other. In short, his comments regarding the publication status of a particular paper have no place in a discussion about safety and fluoride. 2. Dr Emerson's professional status. This is a completely different discussion. People are fully entitled to discuss whether or not they believe they have been misled by his comments (although I personally think that you're overstating the case against him), but such a discussion is about the suitability of an official. Say the surgeon general stated that smoking is good for you, based on an exhaustive survey of 1930's cigarette advertisements. The public would be well advised to discuss his suitability for the role he occupies, but this is not the same thing as discussing whether or not smoking is dangerous. In fact they are, as is the case here, completely unrelated. By conflating these two separate discussions you are, perhaps deliberately, confusing the issue and disingenuously associating the case for fluoridation with what you have stated is an attempt to mislead the public. Such a tactic does an injustice to the discussion, to those you're attempting to convince, and those persuing research into the issue you say is so dear to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 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. If anyone is the broken record here Chinahand it is you. We have not lied or distorted and are certainly not the ones acting disgracefully. Dr Emerson will have to face up to what he has said, if he can back it up then good we look forward to his comments if not then we will let the public and government decide. Happy Easter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermes Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 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. I just thought it would be worth pointing out, based on my knowledge as a healthcare professional, that there have been at least 3 cases of childhood osteosarcoma in the past 5 years on the Isle of Man - one this year even. Given what appears to be a significantly higher incidence of the disease on the Isle of Man it would perhaps be prudent for Dr Emerson to bear this in mind. If I were him I would play safe, and seek further evidence that Fluoridation is absolutely not an additional risk factor for Osteosarcoma. I would then examine why Osteosarcoma appears to be so common here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoofhearted Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 I believe that this topic is raising its ugly head again at Tynwald. And I also believe that it must be a foregone conclusion because apparently there are already fluoride tanks at the water works. Anybody else object strongly to being force-fed a toxic industrial waste and having no way to avoid it? I don't even buy fluoridated toothpaste and my childrens' teeth are fine. I realise that quite some time has elapsed since this subject was raised by doodlebug but I still think it warrants the following. I am 57 years old, my Mother was a local councilor in Lancashire in the 1960's and I recall there being much heated debate then about the possibility that fluoride might be forced upon the population. The main argument against then (and still is now - IMHO) is not so much WHAT is being added to the water but that ANY mass medication can be applied via the water supply. Fluoride might be the first of many such additives to keep certain conditions at bay - antibiotics, anti-depressants or even bromide to ensure no population explosion etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 just received the government's propaganda leaflet, I thought all these had to be re-printed, that's pdq if they have, but there's no reference or date on the sheet to say which version of the 'truth' it is ! does anyone know if filter jugs get rid of fluoride or does it have to be an de-ioniser ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 www.saveourwateriom.com LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doodlebug Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 "does anyone know if filter jugs get rid of fluoride or does it have to be an de-ioniser ?" Normal filter jugs don't remove fluoride. This is the only one I've found after extensive searching on the internet http://www.purewaterabode.com/CrystalQuestFluoride.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I do not wish a government (which I inherently distrust and whose competence level is so low that its less visible than fluoride in drinking water) to be able to tell me what is good for me and then to place it where I cannot possibly avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I do not wish a government ....... to be able to tell me what is good for me and then to place it where I cannot possibly avoid it. I have no wish to be forced to take flouride in my water. As I understand it, only a minority of the population would "benefit" from any effect it may, or may not have, on tooth decay. I am also concerned that those people who are put in charge of treating the water supply may at times get their sums wrong - look at the numbers of people who have been killed by being given accidental overdoses of medication over the years (or non-accidental, as in Dr Shipman). If the poison is available in large quantities, how long before someone dumps a shed load into the water supply? This sort of thing has already happened at Camelford, Cornwall, with long lasting repercussions - see this 2 year old article - The Camelford Scandal Yes, we not only have to drink water, we also have to wash in it, and our pets, and our food animals, which may have a lower resistance than us, will also be subjected to it. The more I read about it, the less inclined I feel to trust the substance. I will leave lengthy arguments to other people. Is it time for a referendum, rather than small sample "consultation"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 People don't look after their teeth - reducing tooth decay by 50% is a huge benefit. I have difficulty seeing the problem. If you want to consume fluoride then ask your dentist for a prescription for fluoride tablets. Toothpaste packages have instructions for us to avoid swallowing the toothpaste, and to especially avoid letting children swallow it. This is because fluoride can kill. By putting it in the water the amount of fluoride we consume will be completely uncontrollable. Be careful suggesting that fluoride in your water or toothpaste can kill you, without suggesting exactly what you mean. You run the risk of debasing your argument... Administering a drug without consent is battery in the eyes of the law. USA FDA Warning: Don't Swallow Your Toothpaste As of April 7th, 1997, the United States FDA (Food & Drug Administration) has required that all fluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S. carry a poison warning on the label. The warning cautions toothpaste users to: "WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately." Why pay to have everyone's drinking water fluoridated when parents can choose to let their children use fluroide toohpaste if they so wish? user pays too... Imposing the will of 'better informed' Public Servants on the wider population sounds like a Communist solution not a free enterprise one - 'Freedom to Flourish' or 'Freedom to Fluoride'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermes Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 You can bet that the incidence of severe tooth decay here corresponds to socioeconomic status, and that the children with the worst teeth who make up the bulk of the statistics are from a minority of selected localities (Pully, Farmhill, Anagh Coar etc). Mass-medication of a general population to affect a limited fraction of it who could be targeted in an otherwise more cost-effective manner seems preposterous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Mass-medication of a general population to affect a limited fraction of it who could be targeted in an otherwise more cost-effective manner seems preposterous. Perhaps mass education rather than mass medication would be more prudent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Mass-medication of a general population to affect a limited fraction of it who could be targeted in an otherwise more cost-effective manner seems preposterous. Mass education is probably better than mass medication in relation to flouride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 oops - messed that up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doodlebug Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 I'm guessing that the children with the really bad teeth don't actually drink water anyway so how is fluoridating the water going to help them? They probably only cola and those brightly coloured liquids found in the newsagents and eat lots of sweets. My children drink loads of water so they will be the ones who end up with fluorosis and all the other associated problems of consuming too much fluoride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.