End Fluoridation, Say 500 Physicians, Dentists, Scientists.

[jc]

There's no room for individual choice.

The logical end-result of this argument is that it should be given to no-one.

[John_C]

There's no room for individual choice.

The logical end-result of this argument is that it should be given to no-one.

I don't see why. I think it makes sence to inconvenience the minority rather than the majority.

[jc]

Its not about convenience.

As was pointed out before, when it comes to medicine, the patient is always supposed to have the opt-out option.

Its not that "it would be nice if the recipient of health-care is allowed to opt out". Its not that "if its not inconvenient, the recipient of health-care should be allowed to opt out". Its not "unless the majority think otherwise, the recipient of health-care should be allowed to opt out".

The recipient of health-care must be allowed to opt out.

Not only that, but your claim of minority vs majority is assumptive in nature.It would be like a government concluding that because the majority of the people haven't objected to some proposal that they're not even informed about there's neither need to inform them nor for a referendum because "obviously" the majority support the proposal.

It would be accurate to say that the majority have no expressed opinion, and that it is likely the majority are not informed regarding both perspectives, not that the majority support flouridation.

If you want to add flouride to your system, you can have that capability. Of the medical science which backs the idea of added flouride, it overwhelmingly sides with the idea of having it as an additive in the likes of toothpaste, not with having it in water. Buy flouridated salt and use that in your cooking / food preparation, if you really feel that you need to ingest it.

If you want it in water, I'm sure a system can be developed where you can have it added as the water enters your house...only some would then no doubt complain that you're expected to pay for something they want to have.

But before you do all of that stuff, I'd strongly suggest you look at the trends observed by the likes of WHO in 2004, which shows that the trends of decline in tooth-decay have no correlation whatsoever with nations using flouridation in water, flouridation in salt, or both.

There is no established connection. None. There is no scientific evidence to support the argument that flouride should be added to our water supply.

So please...explain to me...other than perhaps being a placebo which has no measurable effect other than making some people feel better about their dental situation, how exactly would your assumed majority be inconvenienced?

[solair]

I have white stains on my teeth caused by dental fluorosis, they look like this?

See pictures on this wiki article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis

(I have the mild white patches..)

it also caused irregularities and pitting of the enamel which caused me to need many more fillings than I should have had.

Since I was basically forced to drink fluoridated water, does this mean that I can now sue the local authorities involved for the cost of dental treatment which was necessary to hide a few of the really bad stains?

[jc]

, it is a good idea to avoid foods or drinks that contain aspartame (E951) and other E numbers:

Its a better idea to understand what E numbers are and which ones related to things you should avoid.

I'm curious why you think that Vitamin C or Oxygen (just to take two examples) should be avoided.

[John_C]

how exactly would your assumed majority be inconvenienced?

By having to do the things you mentioned, buying special salt or putting in a machine to add flouride to their water.

[jc]

Nice attempt at dodging the question, but you're ignoring the point that they'd only have to do such things if they wished to continue a practice that gave them nothing.

If they stopped having flouride in the water, didn't have it in salt, didn't do something to have it re-added to their water....where would the inconvenience be?

There is no science which says this would be detrimental to them. None. Not one bit. There is science which says it could be beneficial, as they'd be better off without the flouride.

So where is the inconvenience?

As I said...you seem to be arguing that no longer getting a placebo which doesn't even have a measurable placebo effect would somehow be an inconvenience that would need correction.

[jc]

Put a different way...when the government moved to remove plastic bags from our life, people could at least form a coherent reason why they needed plastic bags and why paper bags were an inferior, unsuitable alternative.

Your argument seems to be that "if it wasn't there, we'd need to put it back, but I can't tell you why we need to have it in the first place nor why we'd be worse off".

In other words...you can't explain why flouride is more necessary than a plastic bag.

[fizz]

I notice since my last post that we have moved off the 'Fluoride doesn't help teeth and harms everything else' agenda and on to the free will, forced medication agenda. can I take it jc that you now accept that there is overwhelming research conducted over 40 years worldwide that confirms water fluoridation is beneficial to dental health? do you now accept the direct comparisons with NI dental health and favourable results of the republics public health policy initiative? can I take it that you accept there has never been any conclusive, causal link established between fluoride and ANY of the diseases/conditons mentioned? if not, then you are simply in denial.

I would have more sympathy with your academic, ethical objections with respect to consent as an issue. I would have, if any of your public health or dental health concerns stacked up. but they don't. so there is therefore absolutely no reason to remove a mineral from water that we know is beneficial to dental health and is harmless otherwise.

to the person concerned with the fluorotic spots on their teeth and blaming water fluoride, I'm afraid at the low levels we have in our water it is highly unlikely your fluorosis is related to water alone. you would need to have been forced to drink gallons of water every day to reach dentally toxic levels. the widely accepted reason for dental fluorosis in this country is a combination of water fluoridation AND a penchant children have for deliberately swallowing toothpaste which of course is a highly concentrated fluoride solution. this is why alot of dentists, myself included, do not recommend flavoured toothpastes for kids or the use of toothpastes by under 2s or even 3s. by then the majority of teeth to erupt have formed and the risk of fluorosis has passed.

[HP]

are you also alleging that canada, uk, australia and nz are all part of the fluoride conspiracy?
that the british medical association, with published studies and statistics in the link, forged these studies (proving no link between fluoride and cancer etc) which are available for vigorous peer review?

Only 10% of water is fluoridated in the uk.

Did you read my snippet from the British Medical Journal posted above?

Please stop going on about the fluoride conspiracy. I am very surprised that you (floating voter) have some doctor friends willing to defend fluoridation since the jury is very much out on the long term health effects. Are you sure they weren't dentists??

I am a dentist and let me tell you that we know considerably more about this issue than doctors. the chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology and toxicology of fluoride form enormous parts of those undergrad subjects in dental school. clearly it is not as big an issue for docs going through college. I have conversations every second day with patients about fluoride. why would I want patients to take fluoride unless I believed it was good for their dental health and did their general health no harm? why would I ingest it? if it were banned tomorrow the dentists would be even busier and have most to financially gain! to say that dentists dont know enough to comment is total nonsense. just because we disagree with you doesn't make us wrong! and you say john gormley is an expert? excuse me? is he a toxicologist?

the bottom line is this, the dental health of every age group in the republic is better than the norths. as an example, 12 year olds in the north have a 50% higher incidence of tooth decay. to say that there is no benefit to taking F in our drinks is pure nonsense, there has been any number of studies which has proved that conclusively. the esteemed irish scientists you mentioned are only some of them. you cant seriously suggest they are all falsifying results just to see their names in dental journals! the systemic effect you mention in 5 year olds to reduce the depth of fissures during tooth development is only one minor benefit of F. you own beloved study suggested that the topical effects are far more important than systemic, so continuous bathing of the teeth in F rich liquids remineralises teeth all the time. and dont forget one of the systemic effects, increasing plasma F, also increases salivary F, which is another source of topical remineralisation.

to contradict you on the medical issues that scaremongers have attributed to fluoride; there is no greater incidence of bone cancer, osteoporosis, alzheimers or MS in the republic over NI. while as you say, no directly comparitive studies have been done just examine the stats on per head of population produced by the organisations working for sufferers in both jurisdiction. where are the epidemics of these conditions you predict? there aren't any because there are no links.

the study you mentioned that is the basis for the petition has already been condemned for stretching the implications of the results by toxicologists, doctors nd dentists on both sides of the atlantic which explains the 600 paltry signatures. the BDA condemned their american counterparts for not looking into this thoroughly enough. and the report explicitly states that there is no suggestion of a causitive link to bone cancer but only that it may act as one of any number of unknown environmental triggers, ie its a theory. also the F dose they looked at is 1.5ppm, 150% what it is in ireland anyway. despite this report ALL of the major cities in the US have independently voted thru their local govt structures to continue fluoridation. although I thonk you should look to where is all started, colorado, which has natuarally occuring levels of F which are 600% our artificial levels. where are the epidemics of these horrible diseases in colorado?

it will be a great shame for irish people, especially those who cnnot afford regular dental care, if fluoridation is stopped. hang on though, I wouldn't mind a new car!

Fizz, you need to be a little clearer when replying. I do not think dentists are unqualified to comment, I just think their comments will be made from the dental health perspective. (Now thats hardly an insult.)

Also I made no mention of any study. I simply quoted an article in the British Medical Journal. As for Mr Gormley, I had no idea he was some sort of expert or not. I didn't mention him, or Irish scientists esteemed or otherwise.

The issue of dental health in 12 year olds here and in the north is interesting. Fluoride may or may not be responsible.

There may be dietary differences. In the north there is free dental care for children so they just be more likely to get treated. The water in the north is more likely to be soft, here a lot of the supply is very hard etc.

I am against adding fluoride to the water, not because I think its an evil conspiracy, but because I think it is stupid.

Perhaps we should instead be looking at the fact that more fizzy drinks are sold in our shops, than milk. (According to a report on our shopping habits released yesterday).