Brainwash Mouthwash?

[ballaughbiker]

It is a moral dilemma China.

 

I think if I had any power I should still have to vote 'no' as there are alternatives. I agree however that it's the politicians job but the public should always be allowed their say no matter how off the wall this is.

 

What has triggered all these posts is the bollox that's been posted by one person in particular (just my opinion m'lud). Any challenge is semantically dissected and cherry picked information from dubious non-referenced sources used against the dissections. At my age I don't get on my high horse very often but I think some things need to be questioned.

 

I now feel we are all going around in circles and too much is being made of this.

[Chinahand]

Of course it is a moral dilemma, but not one where the morality is all on one side.

 

I suppose the point of the last post was to try to show that there are competing ideas of the morality in this situation and so a politician should not be taking his personal views into consideration and should be making the decision based MORE to the technical question.

 

Even more so as this is in fact a very minor issue which is being hyped far too much.

 

You make an interesting argument that it isn't medication - as it naturally exists at that level.

 

You admit to the benefits.

 

The political question seems to be are the alternatives of better utility or not.

[Skeddan]

Adding wF will INCREASE the fluoride exposer of an area. The issue is does this addition have any measurable effects to the good and to the bad.

1ppm might be associated with benefits in location X. However there they might be having very high dosage (e.g. hot climate drinking lots and lots of water, so getting high dosage of F). The dosage received by people in other places might be tiny by comparison, though F is at the same concentrations. To assume such data shows benefits can be counted on when applied in IoM is misguided. There is issue of 'ecological validity'. Anyway, data is not 'crystal clear' - it is indicative and suggestive. (All the kids who have dental problems in IoM might hardly drink water from mains supply - instead go for fizzy drinks etc. Those with perfect teeth and good dental practices might be needlessly 'treated' with F - like giving someone an x-ray when they don't need it - won't necessarily harm them - but better not to).

 

The rest of your post confirms to me you are one of the most unusual posters I have come across - you inhabit a very unusual world - Oscar Wilde springs to mind - the cost of everything and the value of nothing, but there you go!

 

I think you miss the point. It is exactly to do with values. If 'A' values good dental health highly, but puts no value on good mental health whatsover, and X results in good dental health, but is highly detrimental to mental health, A's decision will be pro X.

 

I have my own 'values' that I apply in evaluating - using these I would be against X.

 

However my values are not what the decision should hinge on. The relevant values to factor in this are those of IoMG and the 'will of the people' if you like.

 

I am saying it is wrong for me to be putting my values into the equation and saying this is 'objective'. Instead these should be taken out and the proper set of values put in. If higher incidence of mental health problems is of no concern to the people of IoM, then it is pointless to even worry about there possibly being such a risk by putting X in the water. Even if there is a possibility of a risk it would count for nothing as far as IoM is concerned.

 

Now we might have a debate where A and B are totally at loggerheads, disagreeing about what the objective evidence says about whether or not to put X in the water. In reality it may not be a disagreement over facts or evidence or even the analysis or methodology - it could simply be a difference in values. 'A' values dental health and is unconcerned about mental health issues, B is less concerned about dental health than about mental health issues. Using the same objective evidence A is pro X, B is anti. Different priorities.

 

IoMG/electorate sets the priorities, not Skeddan.

[Skeddan]

Personally I am happy for the experts with the scientific facts at their finger tips to make the decisions on my behlaf

 

Suppose the experts making these decisions are dental health professionals. Their foremost focus and priorities are of course dental health. They may not have any expertise in neurology, neuroscience, endocrinology and the like, and so are not 'across the board experts'. If their mission is to improve dental care and that is their focus and what they measure performance by, then they would arrive at their decisions/recommendations accordingly.

 

(A bit similar to Govt setting minimum waiting times for outpatient treatment in hospitals to improve quality of service. The service did improve and waiting times were reduced to what had been set. However that was achieved by people being admitted as in patients and given hospital beds (at significant cost) - thus the queue was cut and priorities attained).

 

The experts may be expert in reducing dental health problems - but what is their expertise, responsibility and priorities in other areas that may be effected?

[Chinahand]

So if there were a few dozen more sterility problems, a few dozen more with dyslexia and couple of hundred with psychological disabilities, would that actually matter? The error is to think it would. Depending on the problems themselves, possibly it wouldn't. This could simply be ignored - i.e. no special services or the like need to be provided - fertility treatment would have to be sought privately, the rest could be ignored. No public care or treatment need be provided for these kinds of problems. i.e. Let them rot.

 

Given such policy choices with high value put on treating caries, no value put on problems like sterility mental health issues etc. I'm persuaded that the case for wF might be very much stronger that I took it to be (ethical considerations aside).

 

A values good dental health highly, but puts no value on good mental health whatsover, and X results in good dental health, but is highly detrimental to mental health, A's decision will be pro X.

 

You are massively exaggerating this issue and have a very skewed view of the Island if you think the Government would not value these types of issues.

 

If fluoride had such an effect to cause "a few dozen" sterility or dyslexic problems; "hundreds of psychological problems" etc in a population of 80,000 this would be identifiable very easily in the far larger populations that have fluoridation.

 

Skeddan you are deliberately using exaggerated examples and scaremonering pure and simple - with no justification whatsoever from the evidence.

 

What evidence do you have for increases in the rates of any of these conditions associated with fluoride? And especially at the very high levels necessary to cause dozens, or even hundreds of new cases in such a small population as the Island.

 

Edited to add:

 

As way of example of just how amazing epidemeological studies can be researchers have been able to investigate and do research on powerlines and have been able to measure an effect that MIGHT have caused 5 additional leukemia cases per year in the entire UK. That's a 1% change in a problem occuring at an incidence rate of about 4 per 100,000.

 

We estimate that of the 9.7 million children in the population (2003 estimate), at birth about 80 000 would have lived within 199 m of a line and 320 000 between 200 and 599 m. Thus, of the 400-420 cases of childhood leukaemia occurring annually, about five would be associated with high voltage power lines, though this estimate is imprecise. We emphasise again the uncertainty about whether this statistical association represents a causal relation.

 

Link

[Lost Login]

Personally I am happy for the experts with the scientific facts at their finger tips to make the decisions on my behalf

 

Suppose the experts making these decisions are dental health professionals.

 

Suppose this, suppose that. No lets not suppose lets stick to what is known and that is it will not be purely dental health professionals that will be making the decision.

 

I have to admit I have started to only skim read read most of your longer postings as these also seem to be mainly supposition. i.e. suppose in the future if there is a better test for something there is shown a to be a link between A & B which is potentially detrimental although there is no evidence etc to presume this at present even though a huge number of people worldwide already consume A. Should the pro lobby start supporting the case for Fluoridation on the basis that one day it might be shown that A and C are linked in a way which is beneficial. I would be against that argument just as I struggle to undertstand yours which appears to be lets not do A just incase on the off chance that one day their might b a link with B.

[Skeddan]

I struggle to undertstand yours which appears to be lets not do A just incase on the off chance that one day their might b a link with B.

That is one of the main arguments. You have it.

 

As example consider asbestos. At one time "suppose there might be a danger with asbestos" could have been dismissed as "suppose this suppose that" stuff - only looking to off-chance possibilities when there was no concrete evidence of any health issues.

 

I'm not equating F with the now known dangers asbestos - only using this to illustrate a point about anticipating possible risks in a precautionary manner.

 

Unlike building materials, prescription medicines have to go through extensive testing and rigorous clinical trials before being approved and made publicly available. The kind of safety studies that have been conducted on F would not even start to be acceptable.

 

As for "water with F has been drunk for thousands of years and problems would have shown up" - Yeah right! What this tells me is: We have superb detailed medical records dating back all this time and these have been rigorously analysed! lol. Put that alongside and handful of grade B studies and the studies there haven't been which the Medical Research Council said there should be, and you have a real winner. You can be sure its safe - 'beyond scientific doubt' as some pseudo-scientific fluoride advocates will assure you.

 

The one's who are doing the supposing are those who say F is safe. (or rather who suppose it is).

 

Personally I'd like a bit more assurance than second rate circumstantial evidence that something is safe given that it is known that some of what you drink will go into your brain and that F is an enzyme inhibitor with dosage dependent effect (i.e. the higher the dose the worse the damage).

 

You're welcome to drink bucketloads of the stuff (at 1ppm concentrations) and fill your socks with F and insist its safe. If you only see a problem when it hits you in the face, and you're sure you want to do this, go ahead - you have a right to do this and not be harassed by anyone if that's what you choose to do. 5x 'average' water intake is greater than equivalent to 4ppm - and experts will tell you drinking that amount of F is not a good thing. However I accept there is currently no evidence of risk at 1ppm, so be my guest.

 

Just don't also insist that other people have no good reason to not want this in the water they drink.

[VinnieK]

The fact that a significant proportion of our population has poor dentition, would benefit from fluoridation, with no significant measurable downsides for myself etc isn't such an issue for me to do more than write some posts on an internet forum! But I am troubled by the claims that the ethics and morality of this issue are all on the sides of the anti's.

 

I don't think it's a matter that there are "claims" that the ethics of this issue are on the sides of the anti's, simply that a few people side with the anti-fluoridation cause due to their own ethical reasoning. My own view is that dental hygiene is such a simple affair that it's well within the individual's capacity to take responsibility for it, and that in an ideal world the individual has as much responsibility for his or her actions as is possible provided this does not mean they have to live up to unrealistic expectations. I'm sure there are ethical arguments in favour of fluoridation, but those are for others to make - to make an argument on an ethical, moral, or ideological standpoint is not the same as claiming a monopoly on that standpoint.

 

A significant proportion of our population may have poor dentition, and yes, they may benefit from fluoridation, but they'd also benefit simply from brushing and flossing their teeth regularly and cutting down on their sugar intake. Hell, they can take fluoride supplements if they fancy - that is their choice to make, and they're perfectly capable of doing so, so I can't quite see the need for government to make that decision for them.

[Chinahand]

You're welcome to drink bucketloads of the stuff (at 1ppm concentrations) ... However I accept there is currently no evidence of risk at 1ppm, so be my guest.

Interesting to note New Zealand is almost entirely fluorinated - so during your antipodean days I presume you were drinking bucket loads of the stuff - noticed an ill effects?

[Lost Login]

I struggle to undertstand yours which appears to be lets not do A just incase on the off chance that one day their might b a link with B.

That is one of the main arguments. You have it.

 

So basically you are a "flat earther" who will on principal be against any and every advance or change on the possibility that one day their might be a detrimental link between A & B although at that point there is no link.

 

Your stance appears to be on a par with those who argued that train travel would be dangerous as you might asphyxiate at speeds above 30 mph.

 

I reiterate that I can accept the argument that water should not be Fluoridated on the basis that nothing should be added to water beyong what is required to make it clean and drinkable to an accepted standrad. That you base an argument that we should not do so on the basis that a harmful effect might show up in a 100 years time, even though it has to yet even though millions have been drinking fluoridated water for do decades. It is thinking like that which caused the completely unfounded panic about the MMM jab and autism

[Skeddan]

I reiterate that I can accept the argument that water should not be Fluoridated on the basis that nothing should be added to water beyong what is required to make it clean and drinkable to an accepted standrad.

Yes - in a sense this is a secondary debate - one to with application of science and the way scientific research should be used to inform public policy. I'm not trying to win you over on wF issues - but rather discussing how such matters are presented and evaluated.

 

e.g. 'no evidence X might cause harm' is not the same as 'X is safe'. Saying water fluoridation is safe beyond scientific doubt is a total misrepresentation which misleads people to make ill-informed decisions. Making rational informed decisions is not actually something humans do very well (thanks to evolution we tend to jump to conclusions).

 

On the issue of safety, I'm an agnostic. I don't have faith it is safe. I'm not an atheist claiming it isn't. I simply haven't seen anything like the evidence which would be needed to come to a conclusion.

 

So basically you are a "flat earther" who will on principal be against any and every advance or change on the possibility that one day their might be a detrimental link between A & B although at that point there is no evidence of a link.

 

Your stance appears to be on a par with those who argued that train travel would be dangerous as you might asphyxiate at speeds above 30 mph.

(added underlining).

 

Not quite. If there is a theoretical possibility it might cause a problem then there may be a good foundation for concern. (e.g. we know it can get into the brain from the bloodstream after drinking it, that it acts as an enzyme inhibitor, and is known to have nasty effects when you take just 4x what you on average will be drinking, and these nasty effects get worse the more you take)

 

What about if you don't take so much? Well there simply isn't the research to answer that. At this point one then moves on to investigate and gather evidence to try and answer this question. That is what the Medical Research Council recommended. (Similarly trains underwent trials and testing rather than scupper the whole thing through such fears).

 

What then if research that is needed hasn't been done? Does this mean one should call a halt? No.

 

Suppose the same dental benefits could be obtained by another means that cost £50,000 more a year, and there is no possibility this alternative will cause any harm (e.g. free milk). Which would be the better option? You take out insurance and pay a premium to protect against risk. If there is a risk, then this is a 'cost' that should be taken account of. If risks are not costed there is a distortion when analysing options.

 

It seems drawing attention to the fact of possible risks which should be taken account of is considered 'scaremongering'. Good grief. If that was the case, then surely it would be possible to provide scientific studies which would allow such risks to be discounted with confidence and taken out of the equation. Otherwise this is a below-the-belt tactic of snake-oil salesmanship which makes you think a product is more attractive that it is. ('no strings attached!' 'no side effects' when there is no guarantee of that).

 

If you don't make efforts to identify unplanned consequences of decisions, you're at greater risk of making bad decisions and taking steps one might come to regret.

 

If after such informed decision making there is a decision to go ahead, ok. People then know the risks and what they might be getting into. (However there are also other reasons against, ethics, etc.)

 

If that seems 'flat earthist' ok - it is a very simplistic account of the kind of risk analysis and decision analysis that should be conducted in a Decision Sciences approach.

[Lost Login]

It seems drawing attention to the fact of possible risks which should be taken account of is considered 'scaremongering'. Good grief. If that was the case, then surely it would be possible to provide scientific studies which would allow such risks to be discounted with confidence and taken out of the equation. Otherwise this is a below-the-belt tactic of snake-oil salesmanship which makes you think a product is more attractive that it is. ('no strings attached!' 'no side effects' when there is no guarantee of that).

 

There is already considerable evidence that fluoridatuion is water is "safe" by any what I would consider reasonable definition of the word safe. People have been drinking naturally fluoridated water for millions of years and artificially fluoridated water for decades by the millions. The generally accepted opinion is that it is "safe" with the only side effect being some mottling. That should and does in my simple opinion require all the information require without having additional scientific studies. If the raw data suggested there was a matter to be researched then presunmably it would have been researched.

 

This is where you and I differ, I accept that drinking fluoridated water is "safe" as this matches my experience and the experience of others millions of drinking it. OK that is not scientific but then I accept that if a car hits me at 60 mph it will probably kill me. That is not the result of scientific studies but it is what happens in my experience of the real world. To me I have not yet seen any evidence that fluoridation of water as proposed is not safe. You accept that. All the empirical evidence suggests that there are no known or anticipated safety risks and with millions having drunk fluoridated water for many many years without any apparant ill effects there is nothing in the "real world" to contradict this.

 

That for me is more than enough to accept that "Fluoridation" is safe although like anything if evidence comes to light later that changes that it should be acted upon. That is no different than with refard to adding aluminium to water. But people accept that even though I can not spell it as they know what Aluminium ie, it is a metal not a medicine! Any product you can always question whether it is safe in this or that circumstance or claim that it has not been tested it this or that way but with Fluoridation I find it very hard to believe that there is insufficient evidence that it is safe considering the numbers involved.

[simmo]

Its strange how we are all debating this,yet the same thing applies to drugs/drink/cigarettes etc.

Its an individuals right (I believe),to put into ones own body whatever one wants.

I believe that if someones substance taking does not impact anyone else,then let them do it.

Funny how Cannabis is illegal,yet they plan to give us a heavy metal to ingest...

Funny old life ,innit?

[Skeddan]

Interesting to note New Zealand is almost entirely fluorinated - so during your antipodean days I presume you were drinking bucket loads of the stuff - noticed an ill effects?

I was living in Onehunga (which as I've since discovered is the one place in Auckland that does not fluoridate as it happens). NZ is not 'almost entirely fluoridated' - unless you want to say the South Island is not part of NZ nor are other chunks of the country.

 

I wouldn't have been overly concerned for myself anyway - it takes time to accumulate in the brain. I'd be more concerned if I had young children.

 

I've no idea how long NZ has been fluoridating, or if it's connected, but there has been a significant increase in ADHD - at least in the Auckland City area - one factor being greater awareness and availability of diagnosis. Subjectively I noticed that quite a lot of Kiwis don't have particularly good teeth - that is they don't look very good - bit brownish and mottled sometimes. My impression was this was particularly true among girls ... - but then maybe I wasn't noticing guys smiling in the same way.

 

Come to think of it, I know a couple of families in the South Island (with non-fluoridated supply), and was struck by how good their teeth appeared - like -> , with the kind of bright and white confident smile you're only meant to get in tv ads - and far moreso than most people in UK or Auckland. That of course means nothing - could be difference in diet, genes, or a dozen other things, and this could be entirely unconnected and I have no idea of most of their dental histories. In any case it is not a statistical study or anything. Just a subjective view of what I noticed - as you asked.

[Lonan3]

Simple Fact: If fluoride is added to our water, my children will be forbidden to drink it.

 

Based on LD50 data from Robert E.

Gosselin et al, Clinical Toxicology of

Commercial Products 5th ed., 1984