Flouride In Water

[geo]

Dental health care aside, i have been looking into this and can find no referances that our government have said they would be introducing flouridation.

 

I am sure that if they were to consider it they would employ specialist water and medical consultants to report on the risks / advantages prior to implimenting any changes. After all isn't that waht they are suposed to do.

 

I would be interested to know what qualifications the members of save our water have that give them such specialist knowledge.

 

You should remeber that when researching information on the internet at least 90% of what you find is useless / incorect / misguided and downright xxxx. Lets see some published papers from prominent UK proffesors.

 

Geo

[geo]

Exactly our sentiments as well.  Our press release was entitled 'No to Fluoridation - Yes to Education' the paper chose to give the article another title (which we are more than happy with) but we are all for more education, especially on dietary factors and good oral hygiene.

People still smoke. We all know it kills you, increases the risk of cancer by secondary smoke inhalation. We have this drummed into us all the time, at school, in the work place, on the TV and in numerous other places / mediums, but people still smoke.

 

People still drink excesivley. We all know it can kill you, destroy a marriage / familly, can lead to death on our roads. We have this drummed into us all the time, at school, in the work place, on the TV and in numerous other places / mediums, but people still drink excesivley.

 

I could go on and on with similar analagies but the point will be the same, no matter how well you educate, legislate, bully, bribe, threaten or beg, there will always be people who will do what they want, when they want because they refuse to accept the risk or believe the risk is minimal comapred to the effort that would be required to comply with the norm.

 

Geo

[momo65]

60 million Indians suffer from crippling skeletal fluorosis today as a direct result of fluoridation.

Could you point to any peer reviewed medical journal where it reports this massive fluroisis from routine fluoridation please?

[Minnie]

All Saveourwater seems to be doing is quoting from websites. You would have to intake massive amounts of fluoride for it to cause any serious harm. If water has fluoride added to it the amount is only 1 part per million, a safe amount. When amounts get to 2-4 parts per million side effects can occur. Mild fluorosis of teeth causes no initial damage (causes mottling on the teeth), unlike decay!

[saveourwater]

I am not a doctor or a dentist, neither are any of our campaign members, one of us is studying naturopathy though.

 

Dr Emerson, the DHSS Public Health Consultant who has proposed fluoridation as a solution to the island's poor dental health is however a doctor, he is an obstetrician, and then presumably took the necessary further exams to become a public health consultant.

 

Our trainee naturopath was aware of the dangers of fluoride from reading many articles over the past few years and made me aware of the dangers just under a year ago.

 

Since then I have been researching this issue a lot, on the internet yes but also talking to other campaign groups such as the UK NPWA & the Fluoride Action Netwrok in the States, I have read as many books on the subject as I could find and read the Government commissioned York Report and the supplementary statements from the chair of that report, Professor Trevor Sheldon.

 

I now know exactly what water fluoridation entails, it's full history, where the chemicals are obtained and also other sources of fluoride in peoples daily diets.

 

I know that the so called definitive York Report purported by government in the UK and now by the IOM DHSS public health directorate to prove fluoridation both safe and effective is not so, in fact it has been so widely misquoted and misrepresented that the chair of the report Prof. Sheldon took the almost unheard of step of issuing a supplementary statement to the contrary, and even sending it to the Times newspaper, and it is the York report that both the UK & Manx government are using as scientific hard evidence of the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation.

 

The scientific community are split on whether or not fluoridation is dangerous, there are many, many papers on the issue, a lot of which were reviewed by the York Report, but still even then the board called for more research before they could give a specific yes or no to both safety and efficacy.

 

The fact remains that fluoridation was introduced in the US as a solution to major industries pollution problems (or a huge co-incidence that it solved that problem at the very least), most of Europe has never adopted the practice, and they did consult experts before deciding (as listed in my previous posts) and the US is now fighting a losing battle over fluoridation on a city by city campaign to get it stopped.

 

We may not be qualified as doctors or dentists but we are concerned individuals expressing our right to freedom of speech, we have studied this subject in about as much depth as was possible over the last year and are now ready to tell our side, if people want to listen, carry out their own research and are in agreement with us then great, if not then that is also fine, we are here to raise awareness and spark debate, if we can be proven wrong then I too would accept any hard evidence to support, without question, that fluoridation is perfectly safe, and that there is no risk from over exposure due to other sources of fluoride intake.

[Minnie]

At the end of the day this is a debate that has been going on for many years, dentists were going on about when I first started working as a dental nurse 14 years ago. It's a debate where we're never going to find a solution that pleases everybody. If one group of professionals say it's harmful to fluoridate water because it can cause such and such a disease/side effect there'll always be another group who dismisses these findings. I personally think fluoridation of water will never happen over here, not because of campaigners winning the argument but because it's just such a minefield. Whilst I do think it would be a good idea to fluoridate water, I also think (I'm sure Geo will shoot me down in flames again here!!! lol) that better education with regards dental hygiene is needed from a very early age. Of course you'll always find people who can't be bothered with proper dental hygiene, but in many cases people just don't know the correct way to brush their teeth and should really look at the sugar content of their diet. If kids don't eat too much sugar and brush their teeth correctly they won't get cavities!

[geo]

one of us is studying naturopathy though.

Well that answers a lot – adding any synthisised chemical to anything would be against the whole natural theme, so is that view biased !

 

Dr Emerson, the DHSS Public Health Consultant who has proposed fluoridation as a solution to the island's poor dental health is however a doctor, he is an obstetrician, and then presumably took the necessary further exams to become a public health consultant.

 

I have no doubt he is an eminently experienced and qualified individual

 

 

  and it is the York report that both the UK & Manx government are using as scientific hard evidence of the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation.

 

On what grounds do you presume this report is the only thing that is being considered and who says it is hard evidence

 

The scientific community are split on whether or not fluoridation is dangerous, there are many, many papers on the issue, a lot of which were reviewed by the York Report, but still even then the board called for more research before they could give a specific yes or no to both safety and efficacy.

 

Says a lot then

 

The fact remains that fluoridation was introduced in the US as a solution to major industries pollution problems (or a huge co-incidence that it solved that problem at the very least), most of Europe has never adopted the practice, and they did consult experts before deciding (as listed in my previous posts) and the US is now fighting a losing battle over fluoridation on a city by city campaign to get it stopped.

 

The US detonated atomic weapons on its own soil so I think killing themselves is in their nature, its definitely not in ours.

 

  I too would accept any hard evidence to support

 

So there is no hard evidence

 

I also think (I'm sure Geo will shoot me down in flames again here!!! lol) that better education with regards dental hygiene is needed from a very early age.

 

 

Not at all, I agree that education should be improved, I just take a realistic view that you don’t always get through to enough people.

 

Geo

[simon]

I agree that education should be improved, I just take a realistic view that you don’t always get through to enough people.

On the other hand though - is there any reason why the public in general should be dosed with flouride in order to improve the dental health of one particular group.

 

My opinion is that there remain other, more important issues, with respect to our water which should be tackled first. Like why it still tastes of disinfectant.

[Minnie]

I also think (I'm sure Geo will shoot me down in flames again here!!! lol) that better education with regards dental hygiene is needed from a very early age.

 

 

Not at all, I agree that education should be improved, I just take a realistic view that you don’t always get through to enough people.

 

Sure that's a realistic view but I think comparing teeth brushing with dangerous drivers is a bit OTT! There will always be people who "break the rules" and go against the right thing to do. Brushing your teeth is a something most people do every day, if you're educated from very early on about proper dental hygiene and the correct way to look after your teeth it'll be part of your daily routine. If you're taught the right way to brush your teeth from the start, for most people it'll just be natural to carry on brushing them correctly each day.

[geo]

My opinion is that there remain other, more important issues, with respect to our water which should be tackled first. Like why it still tastes of disinfectant.

Thats a new thread if i ever heard one.

 

Lets hope the new water treatment works at Douglas gets the green light then, otherwise we wont have a usefull potable water supply in the East.

 

Sure that's a realistic view but I think comparing teeth brushing with dangerous drivers is a bit OTT! 

 

The comparison / analogy was with drinking, the point 'educating us to the risks of certain actions' does not take the problem away, as a race, we believe we no best and no matter what the evidence there is always the 'it wont happen to me' group.

 

I am not convinced that adding flouride to our water is a good thing, but I am equally not convinced its proven benefits will outweigh its inconclusive risks.

 

 

I was hoping that saveourwater was going to provide substasive facts to properly educate us, we will have to see if the objective evidence can be provided by them.

 

Geo

[Educa]

As I say it depends on who you are with - and the experiences you have.

 

NHS dentist told me it was not possible to provide a crown, but that they would have to pull the tooth and give me a bridge - to which I said no thank you very much.

 

Off I went to private dentist, and yes, of course it is possible to crown the tooth - no problem - and they gave me perfect crown

 

- yes I had to pay - better option that the NHS course of action - who was very wrong saying it was not possible to do a crown -

 

- and as I say funding or greed - at the end of the day I want proper care - and that includes qtrly appointments with hygienists - are you telling me there is an NHS practise on the island providing this level of care - they are not funded to do this.

I wouldn't say that the advice the NHS dentist gave you was the wrong advice, maybe that was the solution he thought was right for your situation. The only reason you think he was very wrong was because it wasn't the treatment you wanted.

 

Seeing a dental hygienist isn't a necessity for proper dental care, they don't do anything different to what a normal dentist can do for you. Dentists hire hygienists to lighten their own workload...............dentists don't make enough money from cleaning and polishing teeth, hence they pass this work on to a hygienist so that they can make more money doing bigger more expensive jobs.

 

God you keep missing my point.

 

NHS Dentists are not funded to give you proper hygiene care. Therefore I have optend to pay for private dentists who have full time hygienist who have the time to spend, as you have the money to pay. Again, I want the best servive, and unfortunately, due to funding - this means going private.

 

Also - how can you say they were not wrong to say it was impossible to crown my tooth when it clearly was? I can't believe that you find it acceptable that someone would pull a tooth and stick a bridge in, when it was possible to save it and put a crown on. End of.

[saveourwater]

OK to Geo,

 

On page 11 of the IOM DHSS Annual Report of the Director of Public Health 2003 you will find the proof that PHD are citing the York report as hard scientific evidence for safety and efficiency of water Fluoridation, here is the link:-

 

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/dhss/health/publichealth2003.pdf

 

The York report has been misquoted in this way by the UK government and now as you will see from the above link our own DHSS PHD Director, here is a link to the supplementary statement from the chair of the York Advisory Board Prof. Sheldon to counter such statements:-

 

http://www.nofluoride.com/york_report_chairman.htm

 

The York Report was the most comprehensive study of all time into the effects of water fluoridation, but even though it was the most comprehensive study and looked at thousands of scientific studies from all over the world it could not conclude that water fluoridation was safe.

 

The MRC study was far less comprehensive than the York Report in both scope and scale.

 

As stated before we have set up our campaign to raise awarenes on this issue so that the public will hopefully become interested enough to carry out their own research.

 

I do not believe we are bias in our opinions, we are stating facts, the chemicals used are extremely dangerous toxic waste, arising from major industry, it is illegal to dump them on land, in the sea or to release them into the air, yet it is OK to dilute them into drinking water supplies! They are contaminated with lead and arsenic, they are not classified as 'medicine' but as 'POISON', the most comprehensive study ever has stated that water fluoridation was not shown to be safe and "There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health".

 

We also believe that any form of mass medication contravenes basic human rights as all individuals have the right to refuse medication, to mass medicate everyone, every day, for the rest of their lives becuase some children have dental cavities is surely absurd?

 

If the government want to dilute toxic waste into the public drinking water, then we will do our best to let as many people know about it as we can, we want the public to carry our their own research, there are plenty of books available on the subject, campaign groups (with websites) who have the backing of many eminent scientists, doctors, dentists and health officials from all over the World, some of them Nobel prize winners in their fields, and evidence that this practice should not be taken up by way of our European neighbours either never adopting fluoridation or stopping it after many years due to emerging evidence to suggest that it is not safe.

 

We even link to the pro argument websites in order to give a fair hearing to them.

[Minnie]

Sounds a bit like "Whilst introducing an all island speed limit would help the problem of deaths on our roads, maybe if drivers were taught from an early age the improtance of keeping on the right side of the road every time they drive and were shown the way to drive then there wouldn't be a problem."

I think the comparison was with dangerous driving, geo!

[Minnie]

God you keep missing my point.

 

NHS Dentists are not funded to give you proper hygiene care.  Therefore I have optend to pay for private dentists who have full time hygienist who have the time to spend, as you have the money to pay.  Again, I want the best servive, and unfortunately, due to funding - this means going private. 

 

Also - how can you say they were not wrong to say it was impossible to crown my tooth when it clearly was? I can't believe that you find it acceptable that someone would pull a tooth and stick a bridge in, when it was possible to save it and put a crown on. End of.

I'm not God, I'm Minnie! lol And, no, I'm not missing your point. My point is that in society today dentists are able to dictate how they work, how they run their practice and how they are paid. Most of the dentists over here started work with the NHS and they've gradually gone into private work, so they have the same qualifications as they did years ago, they are no better qualified as a private dentist than when they worked for NHS........hence my point the quality of actual work is no better. It is partly down to funding but many are also driven by greed, in my opinion. 15 - 20 yrs ago there were hardly any dentists over here who did private work to the extent they do now, they all had NHS patients, but did anybody ever see a poor dentist? NHS dentists may not be funded to hire hygienists who can spend the time cleaning your teeth and teaching you good dental hygiene but surely that's part of a dentists job anyway............looking after your teeth! Like I said, dentists hire hygienists to lighten their own workload. Dentists claim they don't get paid enough for the work they do on the NHS so people have no choice but to give in to them and pay through the nose for dental work. Nowadays we pay extortionate prices for the same dental work which we had done on the NHS years ago, maybe you think that's ok but I don't.

 

With regards to your crown I didn't exactly say the dentist was wrong to say it was impossible to crown your tooth, I said maybe that was the solution the dentist thought was best in your case, in his opinion.

[geo]

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/dhss/health/publichealth2003.pdf

 

It does say in the above document that the york report concluded that fluoridation was safe and effective, whereas it would have been more accurate to state that the york report could find no conclusive evidence that fluoridation was unsafe. More a play on words me thinks.

 

This report does make many other relevant statements

 

Sadly not all evidence cited in support of these debates is valid.

 

The last three paragraphs are very relevant in that they comment on the dental health benefits to those that are at risk, they also state they ‘Advocate’ the introduction of fluoridation (not state it will be introduced) and finally they state that they are aware this subject requires more resources, information and education.

 

This would seem the prudent way forward and I for one would support our department of health in investigating the possibility of introducing fluoridation further and hope in the future to be given, as stated, correct information.

 

http://www.nofluoride.com/york_report_chairman.htm

 

Again this is more a play on words. They do not say it is safe but there again they do not say it is unsafe !

 

It does sound as though the York Report does not give enough detail or conclusive evidence for either side of the debate. I am sure you have written to our Minister for Health with regards this saveourwater, what was their response?

 

Geo