The Forum > Article Comments > Lies, damned lies and fluoridation > Comments
Lies, damned lies and fluoridation : Comments
By David McRae, published 8/3/2005David McRae argues that the public has been misinformed over the benefits and risks of fluoridation.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by Suella, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 12:18:19 PM
| |
Your arguments seem convincing David, but I agree with Suella that the Dental world are being truely altruistic and their evidence of the benefits of fluordated water is sound. See this document -
http://www.ada.org.au/media/documents/Consumer_Info/FLUORIDE%20-%20NATURE%20THOUGHT%20OF%20IT%20FIRST.pdf from the Australian Dental Association and tell me where the untruths lie. This document points to a peer-reviewed article Spencer A.J., Slade, G.D. and Davies, M. (1996) Water Fluoridation in Australia. Community Dental Health, 13, supplement 2, 27-37 and the ADA state from this article .... "The paper reports on a study in which researchers looked at Queensland (approx. 5% of population with water fluoridation) and South Australia (70%). In Queensland it compared children in Townsville (fluoridated since 1964) with those in Brisbane (never fluoridated). In South Australia it compared Adelaide (fluoridated since 1971) and regional centres (mainly not fluoridated). The study concluded that in comparing the two regions (with or without fluoride): water fluoridation alone had a strong effect on the primary dentition (first teeth) in Queensland, water fluoridation was responsible for 0.3 less decayed surfaces per child. Spencer points out the public health importance of these figures – that: “…a difference of only 0.12 DMF surfaces per child would translate to 300,000 permanent tooth surfaces for the approximately 2.5 million children in Australia aged 5-15 years.”" Being a parent of three young children in unfluoridated Brisbane, my partner and I ensure that our children use fluoride toothpaste, and are taught the importance of dental hygene. I did not get enough education about this when I was a child, and my head is full of fillings. Fluoridating water may take away certain human rights, but isn't it also neglectful not to adequately teach dental hygene, nor provide fluoride for dental care. Posted by Baby Blue, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 2:34:01 PM
| |
Well done David. There are far too many lies and half truths from those promoting a poison, some even state that this poisonous substance causes cancer. Listening to a Brisbane radio station - the ABC recently. Parents were concerned that they could no longer purchase flouride tablets. Now there is a debate about adding this poison to the drinking water and suddenly there is a shortage of fluoride pills. I smell a very large rat! Suppose tablets were 'taken' from the market so parents would be concernd and concerned enough to press for the fluoridation of all drinking water.
Wouldn't fluoride manufacturers make much more lovely money by being a part of fluoridating Brisbane and wherever else's water supply? regards, numbat Posted by numbat, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 3:50:28 PM
| |
I have some sympathy for Suella's concerns. Dentists obviously would never willingly have become part of a conspiracy to fluoridate water supplies if it was going to leave them short of work by reducing tooth decay. As well, most dentists I know who believe fluoride is effective do have honest motives in seeing it as a medicine that will help their patients.
The area many people are now becoming worried about concerns the large industries now reported to have been behind the process to get fluoridation going. Industries giving off toxic emmissions of fluoride appear to have helped cultivate support for fluoridation amongst dentists in order to promote the image of fluoride as healthy medicine. As hard to believe as this may seem, it is described in detail in the recent edition of the respected National Resources Defense Council's newsletter "On Earth" (www.nrdc.org/onearth/04fal/reviews2.asp). In this review of award winning BBC producer Chris Bryson's recent book "The Fluoride Deception", Bryson's contention is stated that: "Americans drink fluoridated water not because it was universally accepted as a cure for bad teeth, but rather because government and industry leaders wanted a benign use for fluoride waste". He shows how leading public relations giants such as Edward Bernays, who is well known for his fantastically successful work for the tobacco industry promoting cigarettes, was also given the job of promoting fluoride. And Suella, here is the interesting part that might explain just how and why such an innocent profession involving doctors of dentistry got caught up in all this. When Bryson visited Bernays just before Bernays died at the age of 103, Bernays told Bryson that selling fluoride was mere child's play. He explained that you can get practically any idea accepted if doctors are in favour. The public are then willing to accept it because a doctor is an authority "regardless of how much he knows or doesn't know". So if this is correct, it seems in their support for fluoridation dentists may have just innocently let themselves be used by large corporations whose strengths are measured in dollars rather than professional ethics! Posted by Phil Robertson, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 4:17:59 PM
| |
This fluoride debate really gets me going. If fluoride has been around for decades and its the best thing since football then how come we can't agree about it? Where's the SCIENCE? I agree with Suella that dentists and doctors don't intentionally mislead people, and I asked about a dozen DandD's and they all said they get their information 'from the ADA' or 'from the AMA' or through the latest xyz professional journal. Who among them has checked back to the source of the information?? Not one. They have no time for research. Too busy just trying to keep up.
Baby Blue said F in the water means 0.3 less decayed tooth surfaces per child. What does that mean? It's some kind of average, but is it worth all the fuss? Does anyone know the numbers for tooth decay in Oz? Is it true that all our capital cities are fluoridated except Brisbane? :-)) bosshog Posted by bosshog, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 7:47:23 PM
| |
Australian Study Shows Fluoridation: No Benefit
NEW YORK, Aug. 16 -- Dental examinations of 4800 South Australian ten- to fifteen-year-olds’ permanent teeth reveal unexpected results – similar cavity rates whether they drink fluoridated water or not, reports Armfield and Spencer in the August 2004 “Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology” (1). Children sampled lived in fluoridated and nonfluoridated metropolitan and rural areas of the Australian state, South Australia. Collected rainwater, or tank water, is the main non-fluoridated (non-public) water source for 37% of South Australians, 8% drink bottled water. The public water supply is fluoridated in Adelaide, South Australia’s capital city. The rest of South Australia is predominantly non-fluoridated, the authors report. “The effect of consumption of nonpublic (non-fluoridated) water on permanent caries (cavities) experience was not significant,” report Armfield and Spencer. “It should be noted that, as discussed here, the drinking of bottled or tank water is neither immediately deleterious nor beneficial to oral health in and of itself,” write the authors. <snip> Actually, many studies show, after fluoridation ceases, cavities decline (2). Others reveal fluoridation is ineffective at reducing tooth decay (3a-j). The media recently used the Australian study to blame fluoride-free bottled or tank water for increased cavity rates in primary or baby teeth (4). However, no decay data was included for one- to four-year-olds, the children with the most baby teeth. The studied group (5100 five- to nine-year-olds) already shed primary teeth, perhaps some decayed. This places doubt on the validity of the conclusion that fluoridated water is linked to decreased primary-tooth cavities in this population sample. <snip> “Dental health crises exist in many, fluoridated cities (5); while residents of non-fluoridated Wichita, Kansas and Long Island, New York have better dental health than many fluoridated areas (6),” says Beeber. References and the whole article: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Fluoridation-News-Releases/browse_frm/thread/693cc080260d718a/156de13934a39f16#156de13934a39f16 New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof nyscof@aol.com Posted by NYSCOF, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 8:58:22 PM
| |
I am fluoride poisoned and so are a lot of others at the only support group for fluoride poisoned people http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/FluoridePoisoning/
Some people are poisoned by pennicellin - I happen to be poisoned by fluoride. i guess that I am just one of those disposable peresons and it does not matter if government policy destroys my life. Ronald Eheman Posted by Fluoride poisoned people, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 9:41:18 PM
| |
I have to agree with David McRae and his thorough and compelling research that penetratingly shows that fluoride is – well to put it mildly - an outrageous travesty and complete disaster for citizens of this country. Mass medication for mass profits organized by insidious and money grubbing profiteers who have long forgotten what harm they are doing because they stumbled on an earner with a toxic by product that seems to provide a endless stream of cash flow to enhance their impersonal balance sheets. Meanwhile they have abandoned any moral principles – yes legal – moral or ethical no, but what does that matter for those following the doctrine lets move on and adopting the attitude of who cares – another bit of poison in the diet - we’ll all going to die someday, so what if it is a few years earlier? I’m all right Jack, the poor mug punters who have to drink the stuff – ah well. And the point is people like David McRae do care and should be highly prized and regarded for their ongoing sensitivity to this huge deception. Recall frogs simmering and then slowly brought to the boil in water – they die – just like fluoride slowly poisoning us all. The real tragedy for me in all of this is that the truth will not set us free. If we just tell people the facts, since people are basically rational beings, they’ll all reach the right conclusions. But they don’t that is the problem. I wish David McRae with his insightful and caring attitude all the best to help us get rid of this horrendous and deceitful lie of fluoridation.
NOT HAPPY JOHN Posted by NOT HAPPY JOHN, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 9:54:04 PM
| |
It is heartening to learn that the Victorian Department of Human Services in 2004 acknowledged that dental fluorosis is an adverse effect of community water fluoridation because it simply confirms the evidence from fluoridated Ireland.
Here in the Republic the drinking water of some 73% of people is forcibly fluoridated and in September 2002 the Irish government’s Fluoridation Forum reported that due to the increase in dental fluorosis the fluoride concentration in water should be reduced by 30% to 0.7 milligrams per litre(‘mg/l’). That the Forum also declared that ‘at under 0.8 mg/l there are no significant beneficial effects in reducing dental decay’ is just one of the many absurdities of the practice. More tellingly the Oral Research Centre in University College Cork (that has promoted fluoridation for years) confirmed on June 13th 2003 the severity of the fluorosis epidemic among Irish children, the very people that fluoridation is supposed to protect. Whereas in 1984 only 4% of 15 year olds here had dental fluorosis, by 2002 this number had increased to 36% --- a ninefold increase in twenty years. (http://www.doh.ie/publications/coral.html page 37) This is further corroborated by Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation (http://www.idof.net). The equivalent figure for unfluoridated Northern Ireland 15 yr olds at 17% for 2002 is under half that in the Republic. When it is also remembered that the UK government stated that ‘dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity’ (Baroness Hayman Written Answer 158, 20 April 1999, Hansard) we can begin to appreciate the wider implications of mass fluoride medication. It is time the wider medical profession faced up to its responsibilities in the light of this evidence of systemic fluoride poisoning. How about starting with fluoride exposure pathways and analysis of fluoride in bone? Robert Pocock VOICE of Irish Concern for the Environment, Dublin Irelan Posted by Howzzat, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 10:14:43 PM
| |
May David McRae be blessed with many more published articles revealing the truth about the fluoridation fraud.
The claims about the benefits of fluoridation are exaggerated: e.g. Perth, fluoridated since 1968, has a major dental crisis: "Toddlers as young as one are having general anaesthetics to remove or crown rotten teeth. Paediatric dentists say rotten teeth in very young Perth children is a massive problem with about 20 children a week being given a general anaesthetic for extensive reconstructive dentistry and a further seven for extractions. Paediatric dentist Peter Readman said nursing bottle decay, which resulted when children were allowed to go to sleep with bottles filled with sugary drinks or even milk, was the main cause of childhood decay." ("Toddlers teeth spoilt rotten", The West Australian, June 26, 2004) The latest NSW Child Dental Health Survey reports lower rates of decay in the permanent teeth of children in the Mid North Coast Health Region (which is only about one-third fluoridated) than in three out of the four Sydney Health Regions which are 100% fluoridated? (Armfield J; Roberts-Thomson & Spencer J (2003) "The Child Dental Health Survey NSW". Australian Institute of Health & Welfare (2003).AIHWCat.DEN117) In the Mid North Coast Region of NSW the Health Department Statistics (SOKS data April 2004) show that non-fluoridated Kempsey and Hastings have lower rates of decay in children's permanent teeth than in neighbouring Nambucca which has been fluoridated since 1963? Discover for yourself that the adverse effects of fluoridation are underestimated: visit www.SLweb.org/bibliography.html and browse through the large collection of annotated bibliographies on peer-reviewed and published fluoride studies. Virtually all have been sourced from mainstream medical, dental and scientific journals. The majority show harm from fluoride. Alternatively, visit http://www.fluoridealert.org and begin by reading "50 reasons to oppose fluoride" which was authored by the Professor of Chemistry at St Lawrence University, Canton, NY. Long live truth! Posted by Blossom, Thursday, 10 March 2005 7:18:18 PM
| |
Response from Author:
BabyBlue (post#2) says look at an online ADA media document and show the untruths. I looked - they are on every page. Page 2 claims that nature thought of fluoridation first. NO. In Australia water is artificially fluoridated with silicon-fluoride compounds, toxic waste products of fertilizer production plants such as Incitec-Pivot in Geelong. Nowhere in nature are these fluoride compounds found in water. The US Environment Protection Agency says that there have been NO studies to see what chemical species are formed when these dissolve in water. Yet ADA and other advocates recklessly claim, with no evidence, that it is identical to natural fluoride in water. Mothers milk is a good indication of how nature has developed ideal food for infants over millennia. The mammory gland vigorously removes fluoride, even if the mother is drinking it. Mothers milk contains less than 0.02 mg/L of fluoride. Fluoridated water contains 1.0mg/L. In other words, infants fed formula and tap water will be unknowingly getting over 100 times the level of fluoride that is natural for them, before their kidneys etc are developed to handle it. Using meaningless advertising slogans about nature is appalling ‘spin’, and dangerous when applied to infants’ health. Page 4 is on safety and merely consists of five quoted endorsements from organizations. It selectively quotes from the UK government’s York Review. Go to the York Review’s webpage http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm particularly the summary page “What the York Review Really found” to see that they make no great claims to finding fluoridation safe. Their main finding was shock that after decades of fluoridation there was no high quality science on it anywhere in the world. This ADA document completely ignores the many suspected and known health hazards that I gave references for in my article. To ignore them is untruthful. They should have the guts, integrity and respect for readers to discuss them properly. For more health hazards that the ADA ignores see Professor P Connett’s review of the science at http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm For a remarkable book on the history of fluoridation see http://pubs.acs.org/cen/books/8233/8233books.html David McRae Posted by Ironer, Thursday, 10 March 2005 9:46:22 PM
| |
Gosford City Council & Wyong Shire Council on the Central Coast in NSW are a Joint Water Authority. The issue is Gosford is an unflurodated water supply by defination of the Flurodation of Public Waters Act 1957, because it receives fluride on less than 180 days in any 365 day period. I find it offencive that due to water shortages Wyong supplies it Flurodated water down the 375mm coast pipeline from Terrigal as far as the Rip Bridge. Citizens do not know when the water is dosed at 1ppm and when it is not. 75 random days during the 2003 year. The media support the powerful in the community and only a fool would believe the powerfull are not systemicly lying to us. We are currently being presured to change I believe because Gosford is dangeriously low on water and while we are anti fluride the State has a problem supplying water from our north Wyong and Hunter Water both contaminated with fluride.
Posted by Gosford Foghorn, Friday, 11 March 2005 9:15:37 PM
| |
Silicofluorides (the specific chemical compounds most frequently used to fluoridate water in Australia and the United States) have never been adequately tested for safety.
Silicofluorides are usually sourced as contaminated industrial-grade by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry. They contain arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals. With fluoride only slightly less poisonous than arsenic, the compounding effects of the silicofluorides are unimaginable with fluoride (an established “equivocal carcinogen”), arsenic (a carcinogen) and lead “reasonably established to be a human carcinogen”. To review the “Report on Carcinogens - Eleventh Edition” visit http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov Silicofluorides not only contain lead but “Epidemiological studies show that, where these silicofluorides are added to public water, children are significantly more likely to absorb lead in their environment from lead paint in old houses, lead levels in water, etc. (Masters et al, Neurotoxicology (2000) 23:101 & Int. J. Env. Stud. (1999) 56:435). Roger D. Masters (Research Professor of Government at Dartmouth College Department of Government, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA) also found that Blacks were more adversely affected than Whites; with Afro-Americans worse affected than Hispanics. Elevated blood lead levels can disturb dopamine function. This can lead to loss of impulse control and then to violence. Violence can lead to victims, emotional and physical trauma, incarceration and increased costs. Professor Masters also found an increased incidence of violence where silicofluorides are used. The government is quietly going about fluoridating Aboriginal settlements (Queensland's Bamaga recently). Petrol sniffing and violence is reported to be rife in some Aboriginal communities. With silico-fluoridated water in Aboriginal communities, and leaded petrol sniffing potentially leading to an increased tendency to violence, Aboriginals will be more greatly disadvantaged. When the Tasmanian Royal Commission on Fluoridation was conducted, it was then known that fluoridation could harm the indigenous population. However, no value whatsoever was placed on the welfare of Tasmanian Aboriginals by the (White) fluoridating authority when fluoridation began. Following settlement of Australia by Whites, water holes were deliberately poisoned as a way of exterminating large numbers of Aboriginals. With the manic push to extend fluoridation throughout Australia, Aboriginals are again having their “water holes” poisoned. Posted by Blossom, Saturday, 12 March 2005 3:46:05 PM
| |
From an indigenous perspective were it not for the tireless work of people like Clyde and Lyn James [Kempsey] I beleive this insideous attempt to quietly and quickly dispose of indigenopus people would have gone unchallenged . Dramatic you say? Well not really if you examine the research. Dr Archie Kalakaneous [hope the spellings right!] the leading expert on Indigenous health calls the governments quiet agenda to flouridate our remote communities without community consultation and without any form of real discussion , "genoocide!".
Thanks to Clyde and Lyn, the 6000 strong Kempsey community was alerted and went into hyperdrive to alert our remote communities . Not before Bamaga [pop 800] at the tip of Cape York was done along with two other communities, but in time for us to send out a strong message which was picked up by SBS and other koori media and start the discussion [community consultation ?] which is our way and our right as indigenous peoples . Interested email livermoreshaon.com.au and we'll send you a copy of the original broadcast. Koori Posted by koori, Monday, 14 March 2005 4:47:51 PM
| |
I go to my dentist and doctor and they tell me they just know fluoride is good for me but they cna never answer any questions about its safety. I know it is suppose not to be used in babies and that it is toxic to women with thyroid problems as well as being a risk for cancer and bone diseases. Why does my doctor or dentist not know these things?
Posted by floozie, Monday, 14 March 2005 11:00:55 PM
| |
Floozie asked why her dentist and doctor don't know about various adverse effects from fluoridation.
Possibly, they believe what has been parroted for decades that "Fluoride is safe and effective. Fluoride is safe and effective…” or they don’t read the results of peer-reviewed and published fluoride studies published in mainstream dental, medical and scientific journals (see www.SLweb.org/bibliography.html for annotated bibliographies sourced from these journals; the majority of which shown harm from fluoride) Australia's celebrity doctor/radio presenter/columnist/author, Dr James Wright wrote (Sunday Mail, 13/2/05) "... The most important time for fluoride intake is during the early pre-natal months when mum to be should have a regular intake..." With outdated information like this, it's no wonder that dentists and doctors think fluoride is good. The US Food and Drug Administration ceased recommending fluoride supplements for pregnant women in 1966! Sodium fluoride is to come under review this year (by the World Health Organization) for possible deletion from its list of "Essential Drugs". I have heard of people being told by their doctor/dentist that it’s okay to swallow their fluoride mouth rinse or toothpaste. Fluoride toothpaste is so poisonous that in the US, the packaging has to carry a warning advising to "contact a poison control centre or a health professional immediately" if more is swallowed than needed to clean teeth. One brand of fluoride toothpaste for children encourages the swallowing of the toothpaste: it is bubble-gum flavoured (and contains 500 ppm sodium fluoride poison). Sodium fluoride is an ingredient of some insecticides and rodenticides. 1080 dingo killer is a fluoride compound. Fluoridation takes away a persons right to choose what they take into their body. Fluoridation treats people (chlorine treats water). Fluoridation breeches the Australian Constitution (which disallows conscription for dental or medical purposes), the Australian Human Rights Act and the Nuremberg Code. It is trough medicine with an uncontrolled dose of a contaminated industrial-grade product which contains arsenic, lead and other heavy metals. If consumers of fluoridated water think their health department is looking after their best interests they would be sadly disillusioned were they to research the facts for themselves Posted by Blossom, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 1:39:45 PM
| |
Yes Floozie, its so shocking your doctor and dentist don’t know about fluoride’s side effects. Had they read and understood the primary medical literature on fluoride toxicity they’d be both telling you NOT to swallow it. The reason lots of doctors and dentists don’t know much about fluoride is they take a short cut and restrict themselves to believing what the AMA or the ADA tell them about it. Most never check to find out how horribly wrong their associations have got their information on fluoride as a result of swallowing so many of the ‘pie-in-the-sky’ stories they’ve been fed about it.
I remember in my earlier days when still unaware of fluoride toxicity I attended a health information night at a major Melbourne hospital. After one of Australia’s top doctors had finished his talk someone asked him what he thought about water fluoridation. “Fluoride is a poison – don’t touch it” came the rapid reply. So some doctors do read the research! If they are still simple-mindedly pushing fluoride as just good for you, I reckon you do your dentist & doctor a big, big favour and bring them up to speed with the medical research at http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html Phil Robertson Posted by Phil Robertson, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 3:05:54 PM
| |
From the article's author:
Most comments so far have been on whether fluoridation works, or is safe or not. Interesting points have been made, and it is a most important debate that should be encouraged to be very public. My article though gave little opinion on that, rather focussing on the ethics and truthfulness of how it is presented, defended and sold to consumers. The key point being that when health departments or dental associations produce ‘spin’ pamphlets that claim over and over “it is safe and effective” (you might think they were getting a royalty for every time that phrase was used) or “ the overwhelming weight of credible evidence shows that .... ” then they are failing to be truthful. Such statements show no integrity and insult the intelligence of the informed section of the public. There is an equally large body of science suggesting that fluoridation has little impact on tooth cavity rates, as there is the reverse. Likewise with safety for bones, thyroid gland, nervous system etc. The merits of the conflicting findings need to be debated in print and public forums. Much more research needs to be done. It is important to debate whether fluoridation should cease or continue while that is being done. Certain fundamental rights are being tossed aside for fluoridation to continue in the face of such ambiguous evidence on safety and effectiveness, after so many years. The consistently wrong statements about large numbers of countries fluoridating is a concern also. I have no beef with health departments in general. I have no evidence of systematic failures of integrity, and hope they don’t exist. But within the divisions responsible for fluoridation, entrenched, systematic failure of integrity is very evident. Unfortunately this leads to a serious lack of trust in these departments and associations. Over the last three or four years, since making a very intensive study of the scientific evidence, and how fluoridation PR is conducted, my trust has eroded completely in the fluoride divisions of health departments. I am sorry to say. Posted by Ironer, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 10:11:53 PM
| |
David, I stand corrected. You have managed to sway my belief that Fluoridation is in the best interest of all. Thanks for putting this debate forward and please continue your fight to get the truth known about this.
Posted by Baby Blue, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 5:25:33 PM
| |
Fluoridation fraud, it has been perpetrated on humanity far too long with outdated flawed arguments. It’s time the lies dammed lies stopped and real class one peer review studies were undertaken in Australia,
The National Health and Medical Research Council recommended this in 1991 and in 1999 but still no research. The NHMRC p 6 ch 8 state “that in view of the classification of fluoride as an equivocal carcinogen in high dose in rats they felt it was IMPERATIVE that public health recommendations in the future be based on accurate knowledge of the TOTAL fluoride intake of Australians”. Has this been done? NO . recently a CEO of the Mid North Coast Area Health Service was asked "How much fluoride are we ingesting each day and could they provide a recent study, they gave a web site address to “Community Dent Oral Epidemiol.2003 Jun;31(3):221-31” have a look & read the bottom paragraph which states “ When all sources of ingested fluoride were added the total fluoride intake was calculated, the children, both in Mexico City and Veracruz, were ingesting amounts of fluoride well above the upper limits of the proposed safe threshold for fluoride intake. So No studies have been carried out in this country and it is obvious we are being over fluoridated, The NHMRC1999 p 4 ch 8 states 29-33%of children in Non fluoridated areas have dental fluorosis and it is 56.8% in fluoridated SA. And is increasing , This is a disgrace, wake up Australia and let the government know they have got it wrong and have done for years. Sydney has been fluoridated for 37 years & has a dental decay crisis, reported in the Herald on the 15th February, evidence that Fluoridation doesn’t work To answer Bosshog there are 128 surfaces in a child’s mouth 0.3 equates to less than 1/3 of a surface of a tooth, Also the NSW Child Dental Health Survey 2000 Mid North Coast has less decay 1.01 DMFT 1/3 fluoridated compared to SE, SW North and Central Sydney 100% fluoridated Fluoridation is a failure. Lyn James Yarravel Posted by scooterboots, Thursday, 17 March 2005 10:36:51 PM
| |
Thanks Lyn. A worthwhile post.
For those who regard it as a 'poison' - fluoride is a trace element -it is something human beings need. The reason it helps prevent tooth decay is that it is needed for calcium formation. And when children don't get enough of it, they grow up with tooth decay, which may not be something that worries most people these days. But, in the early days of the Australian colony, it was a major cause of death - 'blood poisoning' caused by dental abcesses. HOWEVER, the dose rate matters - as with all trace elements. So as I said - thanks Lyn - that was worth pointing out. As for the argument about 'ethics' - forget about it! It's not ethical to allow ignorance and scare-mongering to ruin public health. Posted by DizzyLizzy, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 12:24:21 AM
| |
O - I should add, though Lyn - you are wrong about fluoride not working. It does - seen enough evidence to know that is beyond doubt. But still agree that the dosage should be monitored.
Posted by DizzyLizzy, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 12:27:56 AM
| |
Dizzy said, "For those who regard it as a 'poison' - fluoride is a trace element -it is something human beings need."
However, dizzy is, well, dizzy. Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor required for healthy teeth. There is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency. Children in Uganda, Africa, with no fluoride, no toothbrushes and no dentists have much better dental health than American children. Weston Price wrote about this decades ago. Tooth decay has all to do with diet. Fluoride is never a factor. Tooth decay is on the rise in the U.S. despite a glut of fluoride in the food chain, water and dental products which have created a dental fluorosis epidemic. From 1/2 to 1/3 of U.S. schoolchildren display fluoride damages teeth - white spotted, yellow or brown and/or pitted teeth, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. More info about fluoride's adverse health effects www.FluorideAction.Net/health New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof Fluoridation News Releases http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/ Posted by NYSCOF, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 12:46:28 AM
| |
No – I didn’t say it was a nutrient. I said it was a trace element – one that is needed for the uptake of calcium. Even those who oppose the addition of fluoride to water are generally aware of that – it is the reason they claim that excess doses lead to fluorosis and people needing hip replacements.
And it is completely inappropriate to attempt to compare populations living in different parts of the world when examining the effects of fluoride. As you say yourself, most dental problems are caused by diet – and it’s obvious that the diet in Uganda would be somewhat different from the US. (As would the amount of fluoride occurring naturally in the soil.) Fluoride makes a big difference, but it can’t overcome all of the problems caused by a diet loaded up with refined sugar. When considering the effects of fluoride on teeth, you need to look at the same community’s dental health before and after its introduction. I have personal experience of that, which is why I am totally convinced that it works. I’ve seen the patients and the ‘before and after’ dental records in a community in which fluoride was introduced about 30 years ago and the differences are dramatic. As I said, there is a question about dose rates which is worth considering, because like all trace elements, we only need a very small amount – but to reject the bleeding obvious – that, added to water at the right levels, fluoride works - is not something I can do, regardless of how many links you can find to the websites of people who make the same misguided assumptions as you Posted by DizzyLizzy, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 12:26:39 AM
| |
DizzyLizzie's latest post shows she may be guilty of some misguided assumptions herself because apart from what to her is the bleeding obvious -- fluoridation's effectiveness, fluoride seems for Dizzy to have another function entirely --- to increase the uptake of calcium into bone. Now Dizzy does not say how much is needed -- a trace element is clearly much less than 1mg/l -- and fluoridated water contains many multiples of 'a trace element'.
Besides, Dizzy's claim about calcium uptake is at direct odds with the UK Environment Agency (sorry another organisation missing the bleeding obvious) which states " The fluoride ion itself is highly toxic to living organisms. It binds strongly with calcium and magnesium and prevents these essential nutrient elements from carrying out their biochemical functions. This is the basis of the toxicity of inorganic fluorides". Worse still, the noted Indian academic and expert on fluorosis Dr Susheela has demonstrated that fluoride replaces calcium in teeth and presented this evidence to the UK parliament. Maybe here again one of the world's leading experts in fluorosis must be missing the bleeding obvious. What has always been obvious to those who look at the policy from a rsponsible public health perspective, is that once fluoride or anything else is added to the food chain -- yes water is a food -- the dosage can not be controlled. This was the reason why France rejected fluoridation as a public health measure in the early 1990s. Posted by Howzzat, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 9:14:25 PM
| |
One of the advantages and disadvantages of getting old--depending on your interest in a subject--is that you hear the same arguments time and time again. I've been listening to the fluoride debate for nearly 60 years. I'm not going to add to the generous helpings of pro and con in this thread....but I will add two postings, one about a visit I had recently to the dentist and one about learning--just to widen the discussion, soften its edges and hopefully provide some other perspective on dentistry and dentists. Some readers may find my remarks too personal, too impressionistic and, to these, I apologize beforehand.
____________________________ Posted by Bahaichap, Sunday, 15 October 2006 1:52:46 PM
| |
Part #2:
____________ STRUCTURED PATTERNS In September 1959 a conference of some thirty-five scientists, scholars, and educators was held in the USA to discuss how education in science could be improved. It was attended by noted educator Jerome Bruner and the results were discussed in his book The Process of Education. My life as a pioneer of sorts began the year that book was published, 1962. Over the next forty years I learned a great deal and Bruner explains much of what I learned and why. Given the four dozen theories of learning I now have in my three volumes of psychology notes, I would be hesitant to give Bruner too much of the credit. -Ron Price with thanks to Jerome Bruner, The Process of Education, Harvard University Press 1962, pp. 97. There is much more to learning, but..... Perhaps the most basic thing that can be said about human memory, after a century of intensive research, is that unless detail is placed into a structured pattern, it is rapidly forgotten. Discovery of regularities in previously unrecognized relations and similarities between ideas, results in a sense of self-confidence in one's abilities. Organizing facts in terms of principles and ideas from which they may be inferred is the only known way of reducing the quick rate of memory loss...... so says Jerome Bruner..... Ron Price 19 December 2003 _______________________ Posted by Bahaichap, Sunday, 15 October 2006 1:54:45 PM
| |
Please go to <www.prestonaprice.org> and learn. regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Sunday, 15 October 2006 2:08:52 PM
| |
Sorry! the link should read <www.westonaprice.org> numbat
Posted by numbat, Sunday, 15 October 2006 2:15:20 PM
| |
The Democratic Labor Party's commitment to locals having a local voice coincides with David's thoughts on the ethics of compulsorily dosing people with fluoridated water:
"Community water supplies free from fluoride and other forms of mass medication except where approved in a referendum of the local communities concerned with the issue." Personally, my own interest has risen with the birth of my children. I also really appreciate the comment made about breast milk. If flouride were necessary for the proper uptake of calcium, where would that leave the bones of breast fed babies? Posted by Newhouse, Thursday, 28 June 2007 4:27:07 PM
|
Living in rural Queensland without fluoridation, my 4 children all have at least several fillings. My understanding is that Brisbane kids have more dental decay than Sydney kids. Does anyone know if there are any statistics to show this?
Suella