Public Meeting - Water Fluoridation

[saveourwater]

2) Where did I say that I don’t agree with government figures on decay? Please don’t try to make statements on my behalf, especially incorrect statements. I do not dispute the government figures at all. I do reject the proposed method for reducing decay i.e. fluoridation. Fluoridation does not work, has never worked and never will. The dental studies you have quoted have been compiled by pro-fluoridationists, and you can prove anything you like with such small scale selective studies. Much better to compare a whole country as in the graphs in the film I linked, and after some 60 years of fluoridation as in the USA – result no difference in decay between fluoridated States and un-fluoridated States, but hey if you want to buy into the pro-fluoridation propaganda go ahead.

 

3) You really are clutching at straws, Denmark and Sweden don’t eat sugar? Really? I mentioned these 2 countries (there are more) because they have very low decay rates, are close neighbours, have very similar northern European western diets and don’t fluoridate their water or salt. Yet this is not enough for you, seemingly they must live angelic lives and never eat sugar or guzzle pop.

 

4) Well you disagree with the current dental and scientific thinking on how fluoride works then, good for you! Perhaps you should now leave the building site and go explain to all those academics just where they are going wrong in their research.

 

Topical vs. Systemic LINK

 

5) I have a very good idea of what has happened with regards to the planning of fluoridation on this Island, I have also explained it in detail for anyone that is interested.

 

6) So what was your role in the DHSS before you began working on the building site then?

 

7) As far as I am aware the first time fluoridation was proposed on the Island was in 1986, it was being pushed by the government dental representative a Mr Watson. After an open public debate in the Post Graduate Medical Centre the proposal was defeated. In any case the proposal could not have been carried forward because the treatments works were not suitable for fluoridation.

 

The next time fluoridation came back on the table was in September 2003, this time with Dr Emerson and the then Director of Public Health Dr MacLean who has now been replaced by Dr Kishore. This just happened to coincide with the new water treatments works coming online (surprise surprise)!

 

If you have some knowledge of private meetings after 1986 but prior to 2003 then how is anyone supposed to confirm them? Did we even have a Director of Public Health prior to Dr MacLean’s appointment in June 1998?

 

8) No it doesn’t have anything at all to do with the years of poisoning of the water supply. It does have everything to do with the amount that the British government spends on preventative dentistry to make it look as though fluoridation works though.

 

Once again you are out of sync with current medical thought on fluoridation. Even the ADA (American Dental Association), perhaps the world’s biggest promoters of fluoridation say that you should not ingest fluoride from birth (for the first 12 months of life).

 

For someone that does not believe in adding things to the water supply you go an awfully long way to defend the actions of those that do advocate the practice.

[saveourwater]

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?

 

Ans, that wasn't a serious question. This was though:-

 

Why would the information have to come from the building site anyway, does Ballaughbiker only know and speak to people on building sites?

[ballaughbiker]

ffs - If this wasn't such a serious subject, I'd burst out laughing!

 

2)You said back on October 4th "a local dentist who has 2 practices on the Island said he does not see the rampant decay that is being reported by the DHSS. I have also had this confirmed to me from other sources within the profession." It sounds like you don't believe their figures or have I misunderstood? You appear to not remember what you have posted previously.

Your point on profluoridationists could equally be applied to the antis.

 

3) I feel like saying ffs again but I won't, oops too late. Just to be clear I was trying to say humorously I don't know why they have better teeth.What you report however is no proof of anything.

 

4) Its my opinion. I like the way you include all academics!

 

5)Fine

 

6) I don't want to identify myself and declaring what I did at the DHSS will do that. Btw what do you do for a living and what's your name? See? you wouldn't want to say or am I making statements on your behalf again? Allegedly.

 

7) Err, yeah they did have a DPH prior to 1998. You will have to take my word for it that the DPH and the SDO discussed water fluoridation in the early 90s. If you don't accept that, well fine, but you're wrong. I know, I was there when it was being discussed.

 

8)Fine, thats your opinion but you haven't explained how a parallel reduction in DMF occurs in areas of the UK that are naturally "poisoned" by natures fluoride. Do they conveniently have excellent prevention programs too?

 

9) Fluoride from birth is my opinion but I haven't got smart ass shysters trying to trip me up at every turn like dentists appear to have in the USA.

 

10) I completely oppose water fluoridation on the Island but I also completely oppose scare tactics that (some of) the antis have used. All the above is my opinion as a private individual. I desperately wish I had grown up with fluoridated water. I certainly would not have a mouth full of very toxic metals and I wouldn't have had to endure a lifetime of expense and pain from bad teeth. Yes it was my (and my parents) fault but hindsight is a luxury. I did not want my son (now 18) to suffer this way and he had fluoride supplements from birth. That was my decision and I have never regretted it.

 

I feel we have really explored all reasonable debate between us and whilst it may amuse the bystanders (I doubt it) I feel I have said my bit. So unless there's anything new......

[saveourwater]

There’s certainly no new offering from you Ballaughbiker, perhaps you defend the policy because you had something to do with it previously?

 

I have put my name, Kevin Glynn to all our press letters and releases. My work involves several industries including dental. Why wouldn’t I want to say who I am, are you suggesting I am running some sort of covert campaign? Hardly, we’ve had 2 public meetings and met with Tynwald and the media, what do you have to hide?

 

Some people have questioned the government data and I believe there may be an opportunity to explore this further on future Manx Radio broadcasts. I have always accepted that there is a problem with decay on the Island but objected to fluoridation as the solution, so yes you have misunderstood my point from October 4th.

 

Fine, you think fluoride and fluoridation are the greatest, good for you but don’t expect me to sit by and not challenge statements you make on the subject, if I wanted to be silent on the matter I wouldn’t be campaigning against the idea would I?

[Diomed]

I was brought up during the war years and didnt see fizzy drinks and sugary food etc until the 1950's. I have a full set of choppers along with my father and brothers. However my grandchildren have problems with their teeth living in this unhealthy diet society where most food appears to cause dental problems.

The Manx water has always been of good quality and it would be criminal to include fluoride.

Whilst the effects of fluoride on humans is well noted, but what is the effect on animals ? This was only briefly touched on during the public meeting before Xmas when the DHHS teram walked out.

[ballaughbiker]

OK Kevin thanks, I don't think anyone could accuse you of having a covert campaign! I have no problem with you challenging my opinions whatsoever. That's what debate and forums are about aren't they?

 

I have absolutely nothing to hide but do not wish or feel the need to be the slightest bit famous. I have no policy to defend other than being consistently opposed to water fluoridation since the 1970s (as previously posted).

 

I think I have previously said all I can on this subject and I don't think that continually repeating my views is helpful.

 

 

 

Diomed - a good question however there is no evidence that animals in naturally or artificially fluoridated areas of the UK suffer any ill effects at a concentration of 1mg/litre. I think with the timescales involved something would have shown up by now, wouldn't it?

[staaue]

OK Kevin thanks, I don't think anyone could accuse you of having a covert campaign! I have no problem with you challenging my opinions whatsoever. That's what debate and forums are about aren't they?

 

I have absolutely nothing to hide but do not wish or feel the need to be the slightest bit famous. I have no policy to defend other than being consistently opposed to water fluoridation since the 1970s (as previously posted).

 

I think I have previously said all I can on this subject and I don't think that continually repeating my views is helpful.

 

 

 

Diomed - a good question however there is no evidence that animals in naturally or artificially fluoridated areas of the UK suffer any ill effects at a concentration of 1mg/litre. I think with the timescales involved something would have shown up by now, wouldn't it?

 

I think the debate keeps fouling on statistical stability and truth. My personal opinion and after reading this thread, is that there is no good argument for or against fluoridation; it's almost a political debate which is mostly down to personal ideas and beliefs etc.

 

Do we want a rather volatile chemical in our water, or transported on our roads; and is it going to be worth the risks.

 

Or should this debate not be better looking at real alternatives, rather than going around in circles.

[ans]

That's the most sensible post you've made in this thread and it's one I largely agree with.

[saveourwater]

Scientific arguments aside people should be asking themselves some basic questions.

 

1) Is there any evidence at all that the target group (children), will start drinking a litre of water every day in order to get the prescribed 1mg of fluoride?

 

2) Is the substance they propose to medicate you with a licensed, ‘pharmaceutical grade’ medicine? Or is it a waste product from industry that would otherwise have to be disposed of at great cost?

 

3) Will the DHSS name all of the contaminants in Hexafluorosilicic Acid?

 

4) What’s next? If the DHSS are prepared to medicate your water supply to deal with child tooth decay, what will they try to treat next via the water supply?

 

5) Do the DHSS know how much fluoride you already ingest?

 

6) Do the DHSS have grounds to override your right to refuse medication?

[Diomed]

Ballaughbiker. Thanks your reply but do you think any research has been done in the UK regarding fluoride and animals ?, I see no evidence of that and therefore doubt it.

Can I direct you to the flowing web site -

 

www.slweb.org/ftrcpersonalstories_cathy

 

which you may find of interest.

If it doesnt come up try typing Cathy Justus on google.

[ballaughbiker]

Diomed - Thanks for that. After reading the sad story, I can sypathise why one would want to find a reason. Its liked being told you have some horrible disease and after the initial shock the thought process must be "what caused it and why".

 

Scientific reasearch has to be more than gut feeling. You may want a certain answer to "prove" a point and human nature will then unreasonably disregard evidence that would disprove it. For example, there are more bald men in Manchester than Sheffield. It rains more in Manchester than Sheffield, so rain causes baldness. Well no it doesn't.

 

To comment further we would have to know a lot more about this story and look at it scientifically rather than emotionally. However to answer your question my reply is I don't know. What I do not is there is no statistical evidence whatsoever that any illness is more prevalent in fluoridated areas than non-fluoridated areas.

 

Staaue - I think real alternatives should be investigated instead of water fluoridation. We know what causes tooth decay yet we still do it. We know smoking can lung cancer/emphysema/heart attacks but we still do it. One of the big problems about tooth decay is that cause and effect are separated by years. If you put your hand in the fire it hurts staight away. If you eat and drink sugary crap, it hurts three years later when the cause has long been forgotten.

 

Its a dilemma but your ideas on other ways would be welcome.

[saveourwater]

In the case of Cathy’s horses there is substantial scientific evidence that fluoridated water caused the damage. Bones were analysed for fluoride content and were found to have very high levels, food and air pollution were ruled out, it was the water.

 

Most areas that have fluoridated water are in cities, but I have spoken to senior vets in Ireland and the UK on the issue and there does appear to be a problem, although the governments there will not undertake studies.

 

One vet I spoke to was living and working in an area in the UK when water fluoridation came online. The very same week a new aluminium smelter was commissioned. Shortly afterwards the vet started to notice that the cattle developed dental fluorosis. The problem was that because the smelter also caused fluoride pollution (fluoride is used as a fluxing agent) nobody really knew what was causing the damage. If the finger had been pointed at the factory then they would have said “but you have water fluoridation that’s the cause”, if the finger was pointed at the government they would say “but don’t worry, it’s good for the teeth even if it mottles them”.

 

It has been argued that fluoride polluting industries use water fluoridation to mask their pollution. What industries do we have that use massive amounts of fluoride?

[%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.

 

I think this pretty well sums up the situation and I agree there is no easy solution.

 

I wish the authorities would have the guts to say "Our diet is causing excessive tooth decay" or "Our children drink far too much sugary shite".

 

But they won't because then they would have to address the problem and it would make them (even more) unpopular. I don't want to draw too strong an analogy but why not ban smoking? Full stop. Of course we kinda know the answer there.

 

In the matter of our water supply, the powerful yet weak-willed forces that wish to flouridate are doing so because the very younger population likes to suck on a can of coke.

[Slim]

4) What’s next? If the DHSS are prepared to medicate your water supply to deal with child tooth decay, what will they try to treat next via the water supply?

 

Oh do behave. You've enough to rant about without this boogey man stuff.

[saveourwater]

Oh do behave. You've enough to rant about without this boogey man stuff.

 

Why? If water is deemed an acceptable delivery vehicle for drugging the nation why stop at dental decay?