Public Meeting - Water Fluoridation

[nipper]

Finally in this debate the beneficiaries of Fluoridation appears to be young kids.

Perhaps then, just the school water supply should be flouridated. Even better, slip a flouride tablet into the cans of coke. Even better give the kiddies free flouridated coke in school. Sorted.

[Albert Tatlock]

I agree that it is open to debate whether such things should be added to the water and as I said I am ambivalent. But talk of it brainwashing the electorate, facism etc makes me want to back the govt as such claims are so rediculous as to be laughable. At least Albert is consistent though as whenever a govt proposes anything he does not agree with he accusees it of facism

That's not quite fair - as a liberal and a democrat, I am consistent in my posts arguing for choice, and against some socialist 'machine' (that I am not free to opt out of i.e. N.I.) telling me what to do when there is no reason why I cannot have that choice. It's not that laughable when you look back at history, socialist republics etc. - and the amount of laws that have been brought in to the UK just over the last ten years.

 

I am actually ambivalent too (probably pro if I'm honest) about flouridation - for me personally - but if some people don't want it I would still defend their right not to have it and some compromise e.g. freely available filters.

[nipper]

Perhaps then, if you use filters as an opt out, you will not be entitled to NHS dental treatment. In the same way as smokers would not be allowed to have heart and lung operations. Or any cancer related operation for that matter unless they pay.

 

It all starts getting a bit murky.

[Albert Tatlock]

Perhaps then, if you use filters as an opt out, you will not be entitled to NHS dental treatment. In the same way as smokers would not be allowed to have heart and lung operations. Or any cancer related operation for that matter unless they pay.

 

It all starts getting a bit murky.

You can take this to the nth degree, but it does not take away the fact that this debate is actually about freedom of choice. Social 'blackmail' or social 'engineering' to take away a reasonable choice, simply because 'nanny thinks she knows best' is not acceptable, and is, using your examples above, as abhorrent to me as not treating the person who caused a vehicle accident just because it was 'his fault', or indeed for the consequences of any lifestyle activity a person chose in what is supposed to be a free society.

 

I think, in society we have to accept that we don't all think the same, and should allow for the significant minority. In this case the significant minority can be recognised by offering them flouride filters. People can then say 'thanks for the advice - but no thanks - can I have my filter please' and perhaps visit only those establishments that have filters, or just shrug their shoulders and ingest flouride.

[saveourwater]

Finally in this debate the beneficiaries of Fluoridation appears to be young kids. I would be interested to know of those objecting have kids or expect to have kids in the relevent age group. I would also be interested to know if those who object on "health" rather than moral grounds if when going to the UK, USA etc they change their policy on drinking water if in a fluoridated area

 

I have a young son, 2 years 4 months. During pregnancy my partner was entitled to 2 free dental check ups - they were never received despite repeated requests. After the birth of our son we were put on the waiting list for an NHS dentist, despite regular, repeated requests for a dentist we were not appointed one until earlier this month when our son was already 2 years 4 months old.

 

Despite the above our son has perfect teeth. He does not have sugary drinks, does not eat masses of sweets or biscuits and brushes his teeth twice a day with a non-fluoride toothpaste.

 

Now we could be a one off (and I would be interested to hear from others on this) but if this is happening regularly is it any wonder that some kids have poor teeth?

 

Also, during the Mannin Line show last Sunday 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.

 

If NHS dentistry is not being made readily available, or being made unattractive to dentists to participate in, then surely a better way would be to change the system rather than be pushed into a corner and have fluoridation forced upon the population?

[staaue]

Finally in this debate the beneficiaries of Fluoridation appears to be young kids. I would be interested to know of those objecting have kids or expect to have kids in the relevent age group. I would also be interested to know if those who object on "health" rather than moral grounds if when going to the UK, USA etc they change their policy on drinking water if in a fluoridated area

 

I have a young son, 2 years 4 months. During pregnancy my partner was entitled to 2 free dental check ups - they were never received despite repeated requests. After the birth of our son we were put on the waiting list for an NHS dentist, despite regular, repeated requests for a dentist we were not appointed one until earlier this month when our son was already 2 years 4 months old.

 

Despite the above our son has perfect teeth. He does not have sugary drinks, does not eat masses of sweets or biscuits and brushes his teeth twice a day with a non-fluoride toothpaste.

 

Now we could be a one off (and I would be interested to hear from others on this) but if this is happening regularly is it any wonder that some kids have poor teeth?

 

Also, during the Mannin Line show last Sunday 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.

 

If NHS dentistry is not being made readily available, or being made unattractive to dentists to participate in, then surely a better way would be to change the system rather than be pushed into a corner and have fluoridation forced upon the population?

 

Yes, good point. my youngest is two and a half years old and his teeth are fine, using a non-fluoride tooth paste... My dentist advised against using a fluoride toothpaste..

 

My 13yrs old daughter teeth aren't good, the fact she won't brush her teeth properly is the most likely cause of this; the dentist is of the opinion that she has weak enamal.....

 

My 17yrs old son's teeth are perfect, not a filling except for an accident once on some ice.

 

Me, terrible sweet tooth, brush regular with fluoride paste even more so as I get older and can see how fast teeth can errode without care. Never brushed teeth as a child and have a mouth that is mostly mercury amalgam. That said, I haven't needed dental care for the past decade due to the fact that I brush more often than I did as a child.

 

Parter, teeth has less fillings than me and doesn't have a sweet tooth like me....

 

[nipper]

I think, in society we have to accept that we don't all think the same, and should allow for the significant minority. In this case the significant minority can be recognised by offering them flouride filters.

 

I would question that those not wanting this government to flouridate our water are the minority, significant or otherwise.

 

Back to the solution.

In my day at school we sat and had our 1/3 pint of milk in class each morning. We should bring that back in schools* but have 'special' milk with all manner of additives in it. Either that or stop feeding the kiddie winks coca cola and sweeties. And make sure the lazy rips clean their teeth.

 

 

 

 

*but not King Williams. Obviously.

[pontiuspilot]

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/experts/paul_emerson.html

 

Is this the guy that was on the radio, or just a name sake..??

 

Here's some evidence towards that conspiracy I've created....

Peter Karran, MHK, a former Chairman of the Water Authority warned the meeting that he was concerned that the new water treatment plants were capable of adding fluoride. He said there were questions over the new Customs agreement, and its impact on revenues, and that if cutbacks were needed in public services fluoridating the water could be seen as a cheaper option.

http://www.manxherald.com/News/42.html

 

I recall mention of the tanks being built at the new site, why pay for these tanks if you're trying to spend public money efficiently... were they a free-bee

 

It also looks like the Gov't has made it's mind up...

 

i don't see a conspiracy here, as to "Warning" that the plant could add fluoride, it's not a thing to warn about, either it can or it cannot. there is no sinister plot to be found. fluoridation of the water supply is a very straight forword issue as i said in my earlier post.

 

you may be interested that the fluoride that they intend to use will be supplied by the borg collective, resistance is futile.

[staaue]

"Where do you get the 1ppm from, funnily enough 1ppm = 1mm3 which is 1/1000000 of a litre. Thats 0.001gram in a litre of water, I'd leave the maths to the people smarter than us."

 

staaue, the above quote of yours is meaningless, in what sense could 1ppm( a ratio) Equal 1cubic millilitre (a quantity)? you are rightabout one thing though,you should certianly leave the maths and the logic to some one smart than you at least.

 

the scaremongering about Fluoride toxicity relates to the pure compund of a fluoride salt not the quantities found in water supplies.

as for conspiracies, please, if there was a conspiracy and i can't thing for the life of me to what ends such a thing would be undertaken, wouldn't the "conspirators" do it secretly without telling anyone?

and not have a public consultation before hand.

please enlighten me as to the details of the conspiracy that you seem to think exsists.

as far as i can see it is merely an attempt to improve dental health, the only issue is how we go about achieving that aim.

i.e. via the water supply or incouraging people to brush thier teeth more.

 

further more staaue, your lack of any chemical knowledge is quite apparent also, this is the main reason for you stance i think, an ignorant fear of the unknown.

please learn some relevant chemistry before wading in again, i would be only too happy to guide you in the right direction where you to ask

regards

Pontiuspilot

B.Sc(HONS);M.R.S.C.

 

Thank you for your input Pontiuspilot, I would like to take you up on this offer to quell my ignorance of chemistry. I'm not really that bright on chemistry mate, very astute that you notice; like you say I have absolutely no understanding of this subject.

 

Why do you think 1mm cubed isn't 1/1000000 of a litre, and why do you think ratios and volumes are meaningless with regards to mass and volume.??? I just don't get it.

[staaue]

I'm trying to find some websites that aren't bias towards Fluorination. All I can find is everyone tell of how nasty, bad and outright toxic this stuff can be...... Mostly doctors and government officials putting Fluoride down.

 

Has anyone got any links to some decent sites.

 

Staaue..

[saveourwater]

I'm trying to find some websites that aren't bias towards Fluorination. All I can find is everyone tell of how nasty, bad and outright toxic this stuff can be...... Mostly doctors and government officials putting Fluoride down.

 

Has anyone got any links to some decent sites.

 

Staaue..

 

Fluoride Action Network - LINK

[ballaughbiker]

I'm

against

water flouridation on restriction of an individuals right to choose. I've only just heard the Sunday Opinion and Mannin Line and I have to say the two anti's had very well rehearsed arguments most of which were totally unsubstantiated.

 

I have said in the past that you could accuse flouride of causing baldness, now prove it doesn't and whilst you're at it, try and prove the Loch Ness monster exists. Both are impossible to prove just like most of the anti's supposed 'facts'. I was particularly impressed with the way they tried to make the manx public think they were guinea pigs in some UK government plot. Very clever. I and most of the rest of the population here wouldn't like Westminster telling us what to do. The other sure fire way of causing an instant 'anti' response is say something causes cancer. The average person will think (just like mobile phone masts etc) we had better not then just in case.

 

The following facts are proven (in my opinion of course....)

 

Fluoride ion has been ingested

since time was

in naturally fluoridated areas. If its a drug, then its had the longest drug trials of any in the order of tens of thousands of years

Fluoride ion (F-) is the same where ever it comes from and its fluoride ion that is taken up by bone and teeth.

1part per million (1 thousandth of a gram in a litre) is such a safe level it would be impossible to imbibe a toxic dose. You just can't drink that amount of water.

There is no statistically indentifiable link with fluoride at 1ppm to any disease. (Yes before you mention osteosarcoma, that was definitely not proven. In fact the report has been discredited but that doesn't stop the antis from dredging it up to scare the shit out of us).

My mate Neil who is a dentist in Birmingham has seen a handful of fluorosis damaged teeth in his career (he qualified in 1977). Of those he is unsure that the fluoridated water caused the minor mottling of the enamel (nb not the 'brown teeth' were are all warned about.) He points out that in these cases, only one or two needed treatment to improve aesthetics. He said "at least there were some teeth to veneer".

Tooth rot is on the decline but the DHSS take regular statistics of the levels of dental disease. Although our local dentist says he hardly sees tooth rot now, this does not agree with these same statistics. I don't know if he is aware that some of his patients will be part of these statistics so it might lead you to wonder.

Dental disease can cause a lifetime of pain, stress and expense. I know, its happened to me. My son who took fluoride tablets has no dental disease. No one can say if he would have had if he had not taken fluoride (Loch Ness monster argument again).

Dental disease can cause death. If this can be prevented it should be.

 

However, I repeat, I don't want it in my water as there are other ways but be highly sceptical of some of the evidence provided. Its Dr Emerson's job to improve the public's health. The remit of some of the other side is much harder to determine.

 

[staaue]

I'm

against

water flouridation on restriction of an individuals right to choose. I've only just heard the Sunday Opinion and Mannin Line and I have to say the two anti's had very well rehearsed arguments most of which were totally unsubstantiated.

 

I have said in the past that you could accuse flouride of causing baldness, now prove it doesn't and whilst you're at it, try and prove the Loch Ness monster exists. Both are impossible to prove just like most of the anti's supposed 'facts'. I was particularly impressed with the way they tried to make the manx public think they were guinea pigs in some UK government plot. Very clever. I and most of the rest of the population here wouldn't like Westminster telling us what to do. The other sure fire way of causing an instant 'anti' response is say something causes cancer. The average person will think (just like mobile phone masts etc) we had better not then just in case.

 

The following facts are proven (in my opinion of course....)

 

Fluoride ion has been ingested

since time was

in naturally fluoridated areas. If its a drug, then its had the longest drug trials of any in the order of tens of thousands of years

Fluoride ion (F-) is the same where ever it comes from and its fluoride ion that is taken up by bone and teeth.

1part per million (1 thousandth of a gram in a litre) is such a safe level it would be impossible to imbibe a toxic dose. You just can't drink that amount of water.

There is no statistically indentifiable link with fluoride at 1ppm to any disease. (Yes before you mention osteosarcoma, that was definitely not proven. In fact the report has been discredited but that doesn't stop the antis from dredging it up to scare the shit out of us).

My mate Neil who is a dentist in Birmingham has seen a handful of fluorosis damaged teeth in his career (he qualified in 1977). Of those he is unsure that the fluoridated water caused the minor mottling of the enamel (nb not the 'brown teeth' were are all warned about.) He points out that in these cases, only one or two needed treatment to improve aesthetics. He said "at least there were some teeth to veneer".

Tooth rot is on the decline but the DHSS take regular statistics of the levels of dental disease. Although our local dentist says he hardly sees tooth rot now, this does not agree with these same statistics. I don't know if he is aware that some of his patients will be part of these statistics so it might lead you to wonder.

Dental disease can cause a lifetime of pain, stress and expense. I know, its happened to me. My son who took fluoride tablets has no dental disease. No one can say if he would have had if he had not taken fluoride (Loch Ness monster argument again).

Dental disease can cause death. If this can be prevented it should be.

 

However, I repeat, I don't want it in my water as there are other ways but be highly sceptical of some of the evidence provided. Its Dr Emerson's job to improve the public's health. The remit of some of the other side is much harder to determine.

 

 

I agree with a lot of what you say ballaughbiker. It would be impossible to poison oneself drinking Fluorinated water, just as it would be impossible to poison oneself swallowing large amounts of toothpaste; I calculate approx 0.3g NaF in a 100ml tube of toothpaste.

 

My biggest concern, that nobody can dismiss; is the worrying concern that taking a toxin over an extended period is dangerous.. The reason I'm Anti-Fluorination, is purely because there is a risk, it only comes down how much proof do some of you want.

 

Proven or not, what will be the long term effects of Fluoride exposure.

[saveourwater]

I was particularly impressed with the way they tried to make the manx public think they were guinea pigs in some UK government plot. Very clever. I and most of the rest of the population here wouldn't like Westminster telling us what to do.

 

 

Just as a matter of interest, what would (in your opinion) constitute a UK government plot to fluoridate the Manx water supply?

[Chinahand]

My biggest concern, that nobody can dismiss; is the worrying concern that taking a toxin over an extended period is dangerous.. The reason I'm Anti-Fluorination, is purely because there is a risk, it only comes down how much proof do some of you want.

 

Proven or not, what will be the long term effects of Fluoride exposure.

 

But staaue, as has been pointed out by Ballaugh Biker, myself, lost login etc etc people have been ingesting naturally fluorinated water since the year dot. For artificially fluorinated water the figures are 100's of millions for well over 60 years.

 

Multiple large scale epidemiological studies have been conducted, large scale science, in vitro, in vivo experiments etc etc and there is no statistically valid evidence that there is any risk. How much proof do you need?

 

You will, I presume, happilly eat barbaqued meat - known cancer risk. Risk breathing in second hand smoke, or car fumes.

 

I seriously question why you are worried about this issue, I'm pretty certain you happily ignore much more serious risks every day of your life and accept that the risk is worth it.

 

There is a risk of many things, but people assess the risks and benefits rationally with the benefit of evidence.

 

The evidence that there is any risk basically isn't measurable.