Dickie

"Get one thing straight Fester. Unlike you, I don't make claims which I am unable to substantiate."

The benefits of water fluoridation are a matter of scientific fact, not opinion. They are measurable and real. Your claim that there are insidious health effects from water fluoridation is unsubstantiated, and thus opinion.

"Well take your tablets mate and stop ya sookin."

Water fluoridation is much more effective than tablets. So why go for second best where the public health is concerned?

"And what "harm" would that be Fester? The real harm on issues like this, is the suppression of information by senior bureaucrats and your arrogance in over-ruling other people's opinions."

The harm from not fluoridating is the unnecessary tooth decay, and the pain, suffering and expense that this entails. Again, this is real and measurable, and not a matter of opinion. I'm sorry if you think me arrogant, but I believe that strong scientific evidence should take precedence over unsubstantiated opinion.

Suggesting that senior bureaucrats are suppressing information about water fluoridation sounds a little fanciful. What information are they keeping secret? I think that it would be an impossible task to keep such information secret for long, and why would anyone want to keep evidence of public harm a secret anyway?

"Hmmmm....."net benefit" eh? That's bureauspeke Fester, used often by the public service these days, isn't it? "

It is valid, Dickie. Perhaps you could tell the forum how many people would suffer death or illness in the absence of chlorination, and compare this with the number suffering death or illness as a result of chlorination? Such figures would put your scary stories into perspective.

"The benefits of water fluoridation are a matter of scientific fact, not opinion. They are measurable and real.

Yes Fester, many professionals would agree with you and many would not.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:E4ORIBvliUsJ:www.newswiretoday.com/news/22240/+fluoridation+health+impacts+scientific&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=au&lr=lang_en

"Your claim that there are insidious health effects from water fluoridation is unsubstantiated, and thus opinion."

Err......could you point out where I made this claim about fluoride, Fester?

"Water fluoridation is much more effective than tablets.

Again, nothing to support your claims, just banging your gums and forcing your "expert" opinion.

http://www.orchiddental.com/faq.htm

In fact, I'm in agreement that chlorine protects against water-borne diseases but the serious health impacts of chlorine have been known for decades. I'm interested to learn why the chemical and pharmaceutical industry, with government support, has not see fit to develop a safer alternative.

"Suggesting that senior bureaucrats are suppressing information about water fluoridation sounds a little fanciful."

Don't recall mentioning fluoride here either Fester. How you jump to conclusions.

"Fanciful" eh Fester? In an attempt to mitigate your naivety, please peruse excerpts of the latest public health scandal which made front page head-lines of the West Australian only yesterday:

"Potentially embarrassing and damning public health information is being routinely suppressed by Federal and State Governments which in extreme cases could border on official corruption.

"Researchers have found that governments in all states have been guilty over the past six years of using tactics to stop information being made public, including blocking funding, trying to sanitise or delay publication of damaging reports and even threatening health academics.

"A survey of 302 academics in 17 institutions across Australia found evidence of 142 cases of public health information being suppressed between 2001 and mid-2006 with more in 2005-2006 than previous years."

"The study warned that at best the suppression of public health information was very poor government practice and at worst, it was official corruption.

"In six cases, academics said they faced threats or accusations and two were forced to resign."

Now Fester, if you wish to mangle and contradict the above excerpts, take it up with the University of WA please and give me a break!

"Yes Fester, many professionals would agree with you and many would not."

Not so, Dickie. The evidence for the benefit of water fluoridation takes it out of the realm of opinion. It isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of scientific fact.

"Err......could you point out where I made this claim about fluoride, Fester?"

Sure, Dickie.

"Chemicals rarely have a "catastrophic" effect on the human body. Their impact is insidious and often with long latency periods for symptons to appear.

The "mass of scientific evidence" also assured us of the "benefits" of the many hundreds of chemicals manufactured during the 20th century where many of these chemicals are now classed as carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic and dozens are now banned. Unfortunately, that was many decades later and after the horse had bolted."

What inference were you making about fluoride here?

"Again, nothing to support your claims, just banging your gums and forcing your "expert" opinion."

Fluoride tablets were freely available in non-fluoridated areas of Queensland for many years. If this measure were as effective as water fluoridation, then why do Queenslanders suffer higher decay rates? Do you think that I should google for a few studies which demonstrate a result which is so straightforward?

"Don't recall mentioning fluoride here either Fester. How you jump to conclusions."

Well, you did say this:

"The real harm on issues like this, is the suppression of information by senior bureaucrats..."

As for your comments on corrupt bureaucrats, I look at corruption on the basis of motivation. The research cited relates to attempts to make health services look better by hiding unflattering information. But how does this relate to water fluoridation, and what motivation is there to suppress harmful information? And as water fluoridation is used world-wide, you would need a conspiracy of thousands of senior bureaucrats in many countries to suppress any harmful information. Given the regularity with which unflattering information is leaked from state health departments, I cannot see how information on harmful effects of water fluoridation could be so successfully suppressed by an international conspiracy for so long.

"And as water fluoridation is used world-wide, you would need a conspiracy of thousands of senior bureaucrats in many countries to suppress any harmful information."

"Worldwide?" That's a slight embellishment of the facts, Fester. Many Western European countries do not fluoridate their scheme water. So would the real conspiracists please stand up?

97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes:

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.

Note Dr Paul Connett PhD and his rather "unflattering" opinion of the Australian government's recent appraisal and approval to "fluoridate" Australia:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ivEiQqJp7bYJ:www.cfsw.us/2007/11/10/calling-all-pennsylvanians/+western+european+countries+name+fluoridation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://fluoridealert.org/integrity.htm

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

""Worldwide?" That's a slight embellishment of the facts, Fester. Many Western European countries do not fluoridate their scheme water."

"Universal" might be the word you were thinking of, Dickie. I doubt you would have drawn the same inference had I said that tobacco usage was worldwide.

You make the point that many parts of the world do not fluoridate their drinking water, but this only makes the idea of a conspiracy of senior bureaucrats even less feasible. And rather than reel off a number of countries that dont fluoridate, you might consider why they dont fluoridate. Valid reasons make more sense than the herd mentality of Brown's cows.

Water fluoridation has proven a safe and effective means of preventing tooth decay for many decades. In the absence of ill effects and better alternatives being found in the future, I suspect that the scaremongering of anti-fluoridationists will continue to lose its effect. Then people in more parts of the earth will enjoy the substantial benefits which water fluoridation brings.

You might also like this very well referenced piece by the American Dental Association.

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

Thank you for the link, Fester. A quick perusal held my interest, particularly the following extracts from those opposed to the ADA pro-fluoride stance.

"The chemicals used to fluoridate 90% of public drinking water are industrial grade hazardous wastes captured in the air pollution-control scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry, called silicofluorides.

("Fluorine Recovery in the Fertilizer Industry - A Review," Phosphorus & Potassium, No. 103, Sept/Oct 1979.) (Also, see 1-1: "Fluoridation: A Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health", George Glasser, Journalist, St. Petersburg, FL, July 22, 1995.)

"These wastes contain a number of toxic contaminants including lead, arsenic, cadmium and even some radioactive isotopes. The phosphate rock mined in Florida for this purpose has also been mined for its uranium content!

"If not dumped in our public water supplies, these silicofluorides would have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon. The cost could increase, depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium, and arsenic are also present.

"The silicofluorides still contain these heavy metals, and other pollutants, when they are dumped into our water systems. According to Dr. Ludwig Gross, even if these pollutants are so dilute that they meet current regulatory standards, concerns remain about synergistic effects and the toxicity of both the silicofluoride ion and the bare fluoride ion itself.

"The plain fact that fluorine is an insidious poison, harmful, toxic and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amount, will remain unchanged no matter how many times it will be repeated in print that fluoridation of water supply is 'safe'." (Dr. Ludwig Gross, Renowned Cancer Research Scientist, in N. Y. Times 3/6/57.)"

Fester, the following technical paper, where the research has been performed by far more eminent scientists than any dentist, will give you an insight into how this hazardous waste has the potential to impact on humans (even on their behaviour) by elevating levels of lead in the body.

http://www.mcs-global.org/Documents/PDFs/SiF%20Pubs10.pdf