%age Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Fair comment ballaughbiker /%age serious mode on I do think the statistics are bleating junk, well certainly if taken without even the slightest modicum of common sense if they are to be used as a basis for the argument to flouridate our water. God - the man upstairs, Mother Nature, call the force what you will, did not intend our new born to ingest copious amounts of sugary shite, irrespective of how the wee darlings seem to enjoy it. Teeth will last a lifetime if you really want them to. For the selfish uneducated parents who can't give a toss about teaching their offspring to look after themselves, then flouridation might be a rather convenient answer to the problem of their children's dental care. (It will also appease the fizzy drinks industry). Using these statistics in such a way is like publishing how much alcohol is drunk on the Isle of Man during the first week of June and drawing implications without taking into account the sudden population increase due to thousands of visiting bikers for the TT. For supposedly intelligent establishment figures to support such a drastic measure as mass water flouridation is scandalous. Fucken scandalous. /off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 And now over 1,300 professionals have signed the online statement:- Fluoride Action Network LINK Is that number statistically significant in that it is opened to be signed by any professional in any field in any part of the world? Also is there any confirmation required that those signing have the qulaifications claimed etc etc which is a flaw in virtually any internet opetition. What I did note though was that I was expecting he list to me made up predominently of dentists etc. However they seemed to me to be very much in the minority. I am therefore with Ballaugh biker, who I believe is a dentist, in that I am happy the advantages of adding Fluoride outweigh the disadvanatges in respect of health as that appears to remain the view of the majority of dentists. Where I am uncertain though is with regard to the principle of adding of Fluoride into water though I believe it is safe. This does not just relate Fluoride but any addition with regard to at which point is an individuals "human right" to drink water with no additives superior to the health benefits and visa versa. If adding a "harmless" additive to water was a quick simple and easy way to eradicate say smallpox if it was still around would the importance o that outweigh my objections? Presently I am not sure I know where the boundary should lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Lost login - mainly agreed except I work on a building site... Manxy - hmm are you saying on the basis of one video clip that dentists want fluoride in the water to provide them with work? Have I understood you correctly? Btw I've just rung my mate Neil who has been a dentist in Birmingham since 1978. Remember Birmingham water has had fluoride since about 1964? I asked him how many cases of fluorosis he sees a day as this video said 1/3 of kids had it. His reply was "one or two a year and its not absolutely clear they are caused by fluoridated water." I'm naturally sceptical and wonder how this nice smily disarming american dentist with the story you want to hear thinks so differently to Neil? Could he be on the payroll of some law firm trying to sue water companies or maybe an insurance co. or does he just want fame and this is the only way etc etc. Who knows I **** if i do! If all the ills offered by the antis (remember I'm an anti but only on a 'human rights' ground) actually happened, surely they would have been discovered by now in Birmingham after 43 years. No? or areas of natural fluoridation after 1000s of years? It makes you wonder doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
integer Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 For the selfish uneducated parents who can't give a toss about teaching their offspring to look after themselves, then flouridation might be a rather convenient answer to the problem of their children's dental care. Except it won't - kids who guzzle fizzy pop whenever they are thirsty will rarely come into contact with flouride-laden tap water.... In my opinion we shouldn't be putting anything in tap water, we just need to educate parents to educate their kids on dental hygiene. Something also needs to be done regarding the waiting list for dental treatment, I hear its now down to around 800 people on the waiting lists - are there any more plans for new dentists? I don't understand why there is a shortage of dentists, its a well-respected profession, reasonably well paid - why so few takers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staaue Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 If you want to see the data staaue, ask Carolyn Lewis. She should have statistics going back to I think 1993 when this survey started. That's a long time before this debate. If there was any, lets say, manipulation of the figures, that should be immediately obvious. %age. Yes I read your posts and they are very entertaining. However I fully agree with your point ( and staaue's) on diet but just because you don't like the statistics doesn't make the dentists "bleat junk". Not in the real world anyway. I have never agreed with water fluoridation on a right to choose ground but it would cure the problem given enough time. I personally couldn't/wouldn't trust these figures. I am however, interested in putting my personal opinion forward so they can be tested by others, (thankfully something you are good at Ballaughbiker ) debate is good. I haven't posted for a while on this as I didn't have any more to add to the subject; but in light of the recent shock and ore tactic of the terrible decaying teeth news article in most of our children, I find this a bit obvious and dubious for it to come at this time. 2000 - 2001 = Dentists failing to care for NHS patients after gov't fails to pay dentists accordingly. £150k is thrown at the problem. 2002 - 2003 = After several years of failing NHS dentistry, we see Paul Emerson states that "If the Water Authority didn't agree (with adding fluoride] then we would have to look at a change in legislation." We also see that the 'public health dept' is in favour of fluoridation. Also note from this article, that the first announcement on how bad the children's teeth are in comparison to English children's teeth. 2003 - 2004 = Gov't appears to act on the current crisis and starts to look like things are getting sorted. 2005 - 2006 = Leaked memo alleges a delay in patients treatment until 2006, Dentists still pulling out of NHS treatment claiming high running cost of dentistry and low funding from gov't being the causes for such failings, we also see private practices opening to facilitate the new private market. 2007 - 2008 = Best part of this decade has seen no solid resolution in the crisis and a complete failing of the gov't to give dental care to everyone who needs it. Experts shocked at amazing figures on how bad the dental health of our children's teeth are. Staaue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruck Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Looks like we will have to buy water as well soon. prison planet hay! fruit & veg now has a bigger price tag - its called "organic", was the food in the old days organic? "me thinks so" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 So from this Newspaper reported quoted in previous post it would appear that Public health consultant Dr Paul Emerson was looking to have the Water Authority just add flouride. He was presumably willing to do this without legislation in place? It is hoped adding fluoride will help improve the health of children's teeth Yes, when all else fails we can hope. He (Dr Emerson) added: 'If the Water Authority didn't agree (with adding fluoride] then we would have to look at a change in legislation.'Like many of the big boys over here I suppose you was thinking that because you is a top dog on the Isle of Man and know better than the yokels and the dirty unwashed masses, then you could do whatever you wanted. It's a bit of a buggar this legislation thingy isn't it. 'That obviously got us thinking about what we could do,' he said......we know from research that fluoridation of water is the best prevention of cariesm (decay and crumbling of a tooth].' No, adding flouride isn't a prevention at all. Prevention is doing something like stopping the wanton distribution of Coca Cola to the childher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 staaue - the problem with dentistry goes back to the days of Thatcher. She chose not to increase certain fees for items of service in I think 1982. Since that time each and every uk government has turned the screw a bit harder. Money goes down and regulation goes up. There have been two meddlings with the old system which began in 1948 but the basic problem has been money. As dentists are not salaried (NHS clinics on the island are not included in that statement) but own the business and its equipment , they have to take some harsh decisions if things become unprofitable. If they don't, their bank will pull the plug like any other business. This is a very simplified version of what's been going on for 25 years. The IOM gov decided to adopt the first new contract in the early nineties and have basically followed the UK since down the perilous road where no practice owning dentist is going to work for less than a plumber and pulls out of the NHS system. (Sorry, definitely no disrespect to plumbers). The investment in a practice is huge and the responsibility is immense. If your customer (NHS) kept reducing your profitability what would you do? The IOM gov could have gone its own way but I think it was just easier to follow the UK's system. Where we do differ here is the existence of NHS clinics run by the government paying salaried dentists. These guys and girls have no worry about practice profitability and can just get on with the job albeit in the NHS rules. I think that this is a major step forward from the UK where NHS dentistry is all but gone. I am a patient at what used to be Carnane Clinic and my care has been excellent in every way. The IOM gov is to be congratulated in providing this alternative, even if its not quite enough. Its easy to blame the dentist. If the media and government suggest they are greedy and you have to pay the going rate instead of a subsidised one, who would disagree? Its just another example of the Thatcher/Major/Blair/Brown machine bolloxing everything and conveniently keeping quiet when the wrong people get blamed. With this in mind, your scepticism on timing is perfectly understandable. I am a naturally sceptical person and if I didn't have a bit of inside info, I would think this fluoride debate had been planned for now. However if you consider how long this problem has been brewing for, I don't think it could have been planned. I think I am right in saying a previous Director of Public Health (10+ years ago) was very pro fluoridating the Islands water but his Senior Dental Officer was opposed (despite agreeing with the benefits of fluoride per se) and it never went any further. Until now. %age There any many ways of preventing disease. The best is obviously removing the cause but another secondary prevention would be increasing the body's resistance to that disease. Sugar is in everything and people like the taste of it. Low pH drinks compound the problem of course but I don't think it is reasonable to expect everyone to stop ingesting the dreadful stuff. We like the taste, the manufacturers like it because its cheap and the more they put in the more we like it. Primary prevention is therefore unlikely to succeed. Fluoride would take a generation to really have an impact but it would help enormously. I agree it should not be compulsory and although I want it in my water, I am prepared to say no as I have no right to add it to anyone else's water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted February 1, 2008 Author Share Posted February 1, 2008 Ballaughbiker fluoridation would not help at all, why do you keep insisting that it would work within a generation? Fluoridation has not been proven to work, take a look at the graphs on the film I posted previously, despite fluoride levels in the populations in the US the decay rate is more or less flat, even after 60 years of fluoridation in some States - how do you explain that? Added to that decay levels have been declining in ALL countries across the world regardless of whether or not they fluoridate their water. In fact the countries with some of the lowest levels of decay such as Denmark and Sweden have never fluoridated their water and do not fluoridate their salt either - how do you explain that? In addition to this the latest scientific research clearly tells us that there is no reason at all to swallow fluoride as the effect it has is topical i.e. via direct application through toothpaste or mouthwash. You say that this fluoridation debate has not been planned but clearly it has. The feasibility study into fluoridation was carried out in 1998, it was drafted largely by the British Fluoridation Society, who exist solely to promote and implement UK government policy on fluoridation. They knew that the Island would require to build 2 new water treatments works and shut down the 3 smaller works. As this was happening Dr Emerson appears on Island, Dr Emerson is a member of the British Fluoridation Society and then leads the campaign to fluoridate the water supply, but does not reveal his membership of the BFS until we ask him the direct question. What has happened to dental expenditure on the Island in the last 10 years? And what has been the result in the children’s decay rates? Let’s have your inside information on this please. The previous effort to fluoridate the Manx water supply was defeated by the public in the late 1980’s, it had nothing to do with the Director of Public Health or the Senior Dental Officer. Why not ask your dentist friend in Birmingham how much the Midlands spend each year on ‘preventative’ measures compared to the rest of the UK. If s/he knows then you will find your answer as to why Birmingham and the Midlands have some of the lowest DMFT (decay rates) in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Let’s have your inside information on this please From the building site? What sort of information you think they have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Thank you ans- just what I was thinking. We are going round in circles here as most of saveourwater's points have been answered in my previous posts. I don't really want to repeat myself as its tedious - for everyone, but this anti seems to hammer us into submission. Anyway here we go: It is my opinion that it would have an effect. The countless studies undertaken since the war agree with me. Read up North Shields/South Shields, Birmingham/Leicester etc etc. You say it won't I say it will Continuing on another post in a few minutes..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Continuing after sorting out my pc: 2) Decay is declining thank goodness. According to my information from within the dental profession there is however still a hardcore of the population who suffer greatly from this completely preventable disease. Those figures are seen in the stats taken every year since 1993 ish. These stats are compared to the UKs every year. I believe them, you don't . End of. 3) OK, lets try to discredit fluoride, we'll find a country with low rates of decay that has never flouridated water and case proved! Yeah, don't think so! There are lots of countries in the world with minimal decay who do not use fluoride. The British Isles didn't suffer decay either until we started eating lots of sugar. So maybe they eat less sugar...... or any other reason. All I know is that decay is still a problem here when it should have been virtually eradicated and its a lot less in areas with natural or added fluoride. You might find a local dentist who might disagree (I've heard him on the radio). So what does that prove? not a lot. 4)Don't agree. Fluoride has a topical and systemic effect. For the systemic effect to be clearly seen it has to be ingested very early in life. By 6-8, the enamel all the teeth has formed. If fluoride is ingested then, it only can have a topical effect. Not quite the same thing is it? You explain why fluoride ion can be traced throughout the enamel of unerupted extracted teeth (eg wisdom teeth) if fluoride has been ingested from birth. 5)Read my posts again. I did not say it hadn't been planned. I said knowing the history of how NHS dentistry has declined, I doubted it had been planned and put the idea forward as a possibility. As I am not involved in any such planning and I don't think you are ( ) so I don't think either of us really knows. 6)I should think dental expenditure has increased but it depends on what you are including. Would that be the total or the NHS total. Either way I don't know. I have no connection whatsoever with the DHSS now and have worked on the building site since 2001. As a result I have no inside information to give you on this specific point. Sorry. The inside information I was referring to was the history of NHS dentistry and the statistics of IOM decay rates when I did work for them. 7)You can have no knowlege at all what was discussed behind closed doors out of the public forum, so stop bulshitting by saying previous discussions had nothing to do with the DPH or SDO. You just don't know that but it doesn't stop you saying it of course. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Can you even name the two people mentioned let alone what they discussed at lenth? 8) I'll have to get back to you on this as he's not in. I will ask though but as he is just a general practitioner he might not know the answer. Could the lowest DMFs be anything to do with 40+ years of fluoridation then? Oh no! that wouldn't suite your argument would it? (Quick, quick to discredit this possibility lets find another explanation no matter what before we're rumbled.....!) Finally, I believe fluoride works. I believe it is best ingested at 0.5-0.75 mg/litre from birth. I don't believe it causes any other the problems previously described at these levels. If it did, areas of natural fluoride (often well in excess of 1mg/litre) for thousands of years would show up these problems. I do not believe we shoud put fluoride or anything else therapeutic in our water unless it is needed to make it safe to drink. I have always believed this as I think it is a human right to have the choice. I have nothing to gain from these opinions and I have no connection whatsoever with the present DHSS individuals who are involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted February 1, 2008 Author Share Posted February 1, 2008 Let’s have your inside information on this please From the building site? What sort of information you think they have? It was Ballaughbiker that intimated that they had inside information when they said:- and if I didn't have a bit of inside info Who knows what they mean by this, who knows whether or not they work on a building site, do you? Why would the information have to come from the building site anyway, does Ballaughbiker only know and speak to people on building sites? Maybe that's true because they thanked you for making the remark! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 This is getting childish. I think your last post save didn't add to the debate at all. Just to be crystal clear(see above), the inside info(s) I was party to was that the fluoride controversy had been going on behind closed doors for a long time before this last couple of years and the history of the decline of NHS dentistry. I repeat I have no connection to any of the present DHSS personnel and cannot have anyway of knowing if they planned it to coincide with anything. I doubt very much if you really know either but fire a few shots in the dark and you'll hit something! I trust this will not be dissected further. Its tedious.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 who knows whether or not they work on a building site, do you? I know. Because he secretly hid the information in this thread in a post. Cunning eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.