UKC

Any opinions?

I say NO!!!

In reply to Sircumfrins: Its already in toothpaste, why not have it in water? If the scientists think its a good idea then why not?

In reply to Sircumfrins:

id prefer if they added PG tips and then i could just heat up the tea with my emersion and add afew pounds of suggar to the header tank.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

I say yes, and the abysmal dental health of benighted non-fluoridated counties like Staffordshire agrees with me. When I did my dental public health in Birmingham in the late 70s I thought the arguments were won and fluoridation was conventional wisdom. I'm amazed and dismayed that we have gone so far backwards since the highwater mark of public dental health in the mid-80s. In many parts of the UK it's now truly third world.

In reply to Sircumfrins: Sounds good to me, stronger teeth, less visits to the dentist, I'll buy along with that.

In reply to Al Evans:

Or you could just brush your teeth with a fluoridated toothpaste, and eat less sugar.

I do this, and my kids do this, and I think it's frankly bonkers to be sticking something into the water supply when the patchy evidence of efficacy is matched by some (equally patchy) evidence that it can actually cause harm at the concentrations proposed.

Precautionary principle for me.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

I say WHY do you Say "NO!!!" ?

In reply to Martin76:
I think it's frankly bonkers to be sticking something into the water supply when the patchy evidence of efficacy is matched by some (equally patchy) evidence that it can actually cause harm at the concentrations proposed.

How pure do you think tap water is?

In reply to JoeL 90:

Because you can choose to have it in your toothpaste or not.

However, if it was in your water, you wouldn't have a choice.

Some people have allergies to flouride.

In hypersensitive individuals, fluorides occasionally cause skin eruptions such as atopic dermatitis, eczema or urticaria. Gastric distress, headache and weakness have also been reported. These hypersensitivity reactions usually disappear promptly after discontinuation of the fluoride.

In reply to Al Evans:

It contains chlorine, but that is to make the water safe to drink, not for a completely unrelated aim. This is medicalisation of the water supply.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B1M3yJ4QBiQ

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Why should we cater for the lowest common denominator? Why should I have to directly suffer fluoride in my drinking water because of other folks laziness?

It's a cheap fix for a the government. We need a better system of dental care in this country not just chucking a load of fluoride in the water and walking away thinking the jobs done.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

not meant as a rant at you btw. Just something I feel strongly about :O)

In reply to Martin76:

Errrrr, sorry to dissapoint you but:-
http://www.freshlysqueezedwater.org.uk/watercontent.htm

In reply to Al Evans:

So which of that long list is added deliberately by water companies with an aim other than the safety of their water?

Anyway, just because there are lots of chemicals in our H20 does not justify adding another one. It's a daft argument.

In reply to SFM:

Spot on. If the government is truly interested in reducing rates of dental caries, it could start with decent NHS provision in child dentistry.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Interfering with uor vital fluids, eh? Surely they'll end up sapping our essence......

In reply to SFM:

Well, because it's harder than you think to get small kids to maintain good oral hygiene. I have tried pretty hard with my kids, but even so, their milk teeth were not caries free when lost. In Birmingham by the late 80s it was common for young adults, of all socio-economic classes, to be caries free.

In an ideal world, everyone would be offered fissure sealant and topical fluoride (as used to be the case) but at the monment, at least in my area, such things are unknown in NHS practice and I have to ask for them even with my provate dentist.

In reply to SFM:
Why should I have to directly suffer fluoride in my drinking water because of other folks laziness?


Because (a) you don't have to 'suffer' anything (in either common sense of the word), (b) it isn't just 'laziness' that results in a great deal of real human misery and (c) because it's a trivial transgression of your 'rights' in the cause of a much more important public good.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

My mum used to put flouride drops in my water supply and as a result I don't have any fillings and my dentist bills have always been cheap. Thanks mummy :-D

In reply to climbingem:

I did too many flying saucers in the seventies and my teeth are fcked.

Don't do it kids, just say no......

In reply to Dave Garnett: Thank you Dave for injecting a modicum of common sense into this thread,

Why do I say no? Well where do I begin...
1) I have a Right to say no.
2) I have a Right to know what implications fluoride can have on my health (especially since I drink alot of water and will probably drink more water than the people they are targeting. They said that aspartame is safe as well as smoking, asbestos etc...). I don't want to be in a position where in a few years I'm suffering from brittle bones because of drinking to much fluoridated water. Since they can't provide this my human rights will be violated (would I be able to take the council to court?).
3) The Nazis used it in the concentration camps to make the people more docile and infertile...this is well documented. Do some research before you say it's a conspiracy (as that's what some of you will say).
4)The minority are being targeted so give them free toothpaste or free fluoridated bottles of water.
5)There are currently no commercial filters that you can buy to filtrate the fluoride out of the water (potential for people to invent a filter to do so could make millions...need to look into ths...)
6)If the Government can't be trusted with our personal data how can we know for sure that they are putting the right volume and concentration of fluoride into the water? Too much could lead to poisoning...are you willing to take that risk?
7) No one has even done any research into how fluoride can effect the Pineal gland!!! Ridiculous!!!

Check this debate out:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8651924132181016035

What do you think of that...both sides are prevented but the pro-fluoride in my opinion gets owned.

Fluoride must not be added to the water!

In reply to Sircumfrins:
People deserve to know how much fluoride is in their water and what is a harmful amount is etc, but it shouldn't be decided upon by refurendum (sp?). Its really very much like the EU constitution most people know nothing about what it actually entails and so the decision to implement it must be taken by experts. Im happy to accept there decision is correct.
If the overly sensitive lot are against it then im sure some shrewd capitalist will invent them a filter to go with the sensitve toothpastes that cost 5 times as much as the normal stuff and tongue brushing toothbrushes.

Also from the evidence, it appears that rather than the minority being targetted, it is infact aimed at aiding the majority.

In reply to JoeL 90: Okay...clearly you don't know much about the topic...did you check the debate?
Let me draw it to your attention one more time that smoking was considered to be healthy back in the day...that's just one prime example...and the experts were telling the population then about smoking what they are telling us now about fluoride.
Do some research by looking into what the anti-fluoride spokes-people have to say because clearly the pro-fluoride spokes-people are going to paint a pretty picture.

In reply to Sircumfrins: Its reasons like this that people (not me) pay taxes for, so they don't need to be an expert on minor issues like this. I have trust in my goverment and the scientists it appoints to make the right call. Thats why i feel happy being blissfully unaware of anything relating to the subject. However, i do quite like the idea that itll give me cleaner teeth with less effort.

In reply to JoeL 90: I seriously hope you're taking the mick because if you aren't...this quote is for you.

"The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.”

In reply to Sircumfrins: Im sure you dont educate yourself about every decision which effects you if you did youd be a skint recluse with no time to waste on UKC.

I dont disagree that evil can come from ignorance, thats why im happy that im not making the decision about whether or not we should have fluoride in our water, and instead someone who is qualified to is.

In reply to JoeL 90:

Its like anything you ingest. Too much can be bad for you. I assume the amount fluoride being added to water is enough to do some good but not enough to be toxic.

In reply to JoeL 90:

It's not what I pay taxes for. Water should be supplied clean and that's all, I haven't asked for any extra "benefits".

Do you really trust the government to make the right decision every time?

In reply to ranger*goy: "I assume the amount fluoride being added to water is enough to do some good but not enough to be toxic."

You know what assume did? Made an ASS out of U and ME...

In reply to thomasadixon:

Its not Gordon Brown who's deciding its some highly qualified scientist. On the whole i trust the government to make the right decision. But this isn't a question of my faith in Gordon Brown or politicians in general as its not their choice, they have to follow the advice of experts on matters like this.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Nice reply.

Do you have an opinion on the levels of fluoride in the water?

In reply to Sircumfrins:

I was taught that quote on a management course. I think that anyone quoting it is a bigger ass than the one who uses the word assume

(nothing person, it just makes me cringe when I see or hear it - thankfully, it is rarely repeated!)

>
Not all scientists agree, the government can choose to believe one set of scientists or another (so it *IS* Gordon Brown's decision in the end) and in any case scientists can be *wrong*. (see Thalidomide for a well known cock up.) It's not hard to find opposition to this from scientists who think it's a risk.

I'm not massively concerned by this, but I would much prefer that where the facts aren't entirely certain that the government take a neutral position - which means not adding anything, only cleaning the water. I would also generally prefer that the government lets us look after ourselves, so doesn't make decisions for us unless it's absolutely necessary.

In reply to Sircumfrins: What would you do if you found out that a group of the UKs finest scientist specialising in whatever field this would come under decided it was perfectly safe to add fluoride to the water and that after extensive testing they had found the appropriate amount? You obviously couldn't argue with their findings as your neither intelligent enough nor have the resources to carry out experimentation of your own. Would you let irrational fear influence you and shower using Evian?
or just accept their findings assuming they were right?
Most people would do the later, assumption isn't a bad thing if you carried out your own experimentation on everything that effected you rather than assuming whoever did the initial tests was right you have no life that was worth devoting so much time to save.

In reply to JoeL 90:

I assume some things because I have more other important things to think about.

Something like that anyway.

In reply to ranger*goy: What the naturally occuring amount of fluoride in drinking water or the proposed amount?

I can't do anything about naturally occuring fluoride but then I don't need to because it is very low...the proposed amount is significantly higher and that is where the risks lie.

Have you read my previous points on why I don't want it in the water? Each point is completely valid...then watch the debate to see some more knowledgeable people talk about it. From this you will be able to see there is cause for concern.

In reply to Bingly Bong: Fair enough... :0)

In reply to Sircumfrins:

From this you will be able to see there is cause for concern.

Yet somehow life goes on.

In reply to Sircumfrins: guess what? your going to get flouride in your water. Some people are gay - live with it.

In reply to JoeL 90: That's a silly scenario to put towards me seeing as some of the Worlds biggest scientist have said adding fluoride is completely detrimental to your health and the cost of repairing fluorosis (fluorosis is a health condition caused by an overdose of fluoride. In its severe form it is characterized by black and brown stains, as well as cracking and pitting of the teeth.) costs thousands of pounds which the target population (the poorer people) would not bwe able to afford anyway!
I don't have an irrational fear...it is based upon solid facts.
Fluoride will not effect you externally so taking a shower would not be a problem.
Most people would do the latter...then most people would get fluorosis at the very least.

In reply to Fawksey: That's an attitude far to many people adopt...no wonder this world is in such a mess.

In reply to Sircumfrins: Get an osmosis membrane under your sink if your that bothered.

It makes me wonder sometimes when people get so wound up by trivial matters how theyd actually feel if they came home and found their whole family raped and murdered.

Some people forget to turn off their indicators wow live with it.

In reply to Sircumfrins: <shrugs>

In reply to JoeL 90:

Adding flouride to drinking water has nothing to do with dental health and has everything to do with freedom of choice.

Government has a responsibility to provide the population with health-advice, not to impose compulsory health care against the wishes of the population, or portions of it. If members of the public choose to reject that advice, no matter how honestly given or well-founded, that is their priviledge - we are not the property of the government, if we choose to be stupid or act against our own best interests, that is what freedom is all about.

The fiasco of MMR shows the harmful effect of trying to intimidate/bully the population "because nanny knows best". Those who objected to the triple vaccine could easily have been accomodated by the monovalent vaccines being offered (probably at an extra cost to the parents concerned). But no, the Department of Health went in for patronising and bullying heavy-handness, greatly increasing the suspicion that "they" were trying to put one over on "us", hence the over-emphatic denial that there was any problem massively increased the rate of rejection of the vaccine. Many parents listened to the ever-increasing stridency of officialdom and concluded "the lady doth protest too much". Almost a textbook example of how not to implement a public-health policy, and how to antagonise your target group.

In order to carry your population with you in public health measures, you have to be honest with them and carry them with you. This starts by treating them like rational adults, not petulant children.

In reality, it is now quite hard to get toothpaste that does not contain added flouride. But that is the free choice of the purchaser, which they are entitled to refuse if they wish.

We are none of us obliged to accept unasked for "favours" from those who think they know what is best for us.

In reply to Simon4: Im all for freedom of choice and speech and am glad my great Grandfathers fought to enable me to have it but sometimes i think the well-educated middle classes of this country get a bit too worked up about tiny issues and are too ready to accept the rather pessimistic view of our country portrayed by the newspapers. Crime is really going down, we're not in reccession at the moment, and the government isn't trying to turn us into some Orwellian totalitarian state one step at a time, starting by adding fluoride to our water to make us more docile! in reality they are probably adding it to improve dental care which may well help finacially through less expenditure from individuals on health care.

If the gov has thought this through which they no doubt have then i hope they introduce it as soon as a fluoride filter has been introduced to appease the moaners with their dreamt up illnesses and fancy toothbrushes.

In reply to JoeL 90: My my my, if I hadn't read all your posts today I wouldn't have believed it to be true. You get programmed these days at school don't you, who'd of thought it; the rise of the youthBot!

In reply to JoeL 90: ppppppppsssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhh...

In reply to johnj: It makes me question the education system on this island...

In reply to Sircumfrins: I know man, crazy shit or what!

In reply to Sircumfrins:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=317953&v=1#x4692085

Cough.

In reply to johnj: I dont think its necessarily that im a product of a stalinesque education system aimed at producing young people who are loyal and owe everything to the state simply that young people tent to be more optimistic than older people. As a result of this they are more trusting, i also dont read the newspapers very often if ever this may be part of it, who knows?

In reply to JoeL 90: f*ck em Joel they are old fuddyduddys who have nothing better to whinge about.

Sweep them aside before you! Your hearts must bear the courage of the changeing of the guard.

In reply to Sircumfrins: Not meaning to get all chauvinistic but South Africa is hardly got a fantastic record education wise. Its a very corrupt place with much more crime than the UK perhaps your lack of trust in government and people in general is a result of being brought up in such a place and being a product of its education system.

In reply to JoeL 90: Optimism is a good thing and that's something very important to take with you though life, we're very lucky to be born and raised in this country, very lucky indeed. I don't read the papers either waste of a very good tree to print tittle tattle but that's another point altogether, but what I would like to say is as you seem bright and articulate; if you'd like to become involved with a subject its good to read as much information about that subject from all viewpoints, don't take the party line which is given to you, apologies if i'm sounding patronising, but times are changing, and all a school education is is the basics, nothing more!

In reply to JoeL 90: Nice one (applause)! I'm not even going to get into that.
I like the way you keep coming back to respond when clearly you have not researched even an iota of evidence...ignorance is bliss hey?

In reply to Sircumfrins:



http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=317953&v=1#x4692085

Keep walking into them don't you.

For those that are interested...here is a good debate to watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=82194292805035136&hl=en

Enjoy!

In reply to Mooncat: Ya thanks...it seemed like a good idea at the time...
Doesn't take away from my argument though does it? Or by discrediting me (somehow?) do you somehow think my points are less poignant or should be ignored altogether?

In reply to Sircumfrins:

As usual I haven't got time to watch all that and I'm almost completely disinterested in the subject, can you do a summary in 10 words or less?

In reply to Sircumfrins and others: There have been some completely spurious arguments on this thread.

Free and subsidised Dental care in the UK is provided the Government at a direct cost to ME, and all other taxpayers. The Government therefore has a duty to attempt to minimise this cost, if them means adding fluoride to the water supply then that is a perfectly legitimate Government policy and fully within their remit.

If you want this 'Freedom of Choice', then bugger off to a country that doesn't have a National Health Service nor subsidised dental care - lots of you currently seem to want to have your cake and eat it.

The only arguments worth discussing are the medical, scientific and economic ones. The 'philosophical' ones have no weight at all whilst the Government maintains any role in medical and dental provision.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

You're right and my apologies, I'll do some reading of my own and hopefully either agree or disagree with some reasoning tomorrow.

In reply to Sircumfrins: Im not going to let evidence get in the way of a good argument this is UKC. Its THE place for the over-sensitive moaning about non-issues along with ill-informed arguments. This thread showcases both. All im saying is i trust the gov and some chemisty and biology boffins to make the right call. If they choose not too as its dangerous, thats not a problem, if they choose to inroduce it thats also fine. The point is i dont want the descision influenced by those whove done a little reaseach but not any experimenting and like the sound of there whining voice. Obviously if it is safe then the benefits of it would be very useful: less private expenditure on healthcare means more to be invested, spent in shops, saved in banks providing capital backing for business start-up. That is why i want the decision taken purely by those in the know.

In reply to JoeL 90: I give up...you are trolling big time...I no longer have time for you.

In reply to Mark Stevenson: Where were the spurious arguments? Did you watch any documentaries? Did you read any points raised? I would say you didn't because if you had then you wouldn't have even played the "philosophical" card...because none were dealt.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Sorry, have to laugh at all the for and against arguments going on here. But only because our tap water comes directly off the hillside, some 8kms up the road at the Col de Port, totally untreated. The SMDEA (Société Mixte Départementale de l'eau et de l'assainissement!) test the water in our 'bassin' just up the hill on a a regular basis and you can pretty much guarantee that the analysis will come back 'non-conforme'. The last one was last week when the SMDEA left us with a number of bottles of mineral water as a hint! Would explain the dire stomach upsets that I had when we first moved down here last year. We just boil water a couple of times a day to use as drinking water. The funniest thing was when the kitchen tap output steadily slowed to a trickle - turned out it was jammed up with grass seeds and other related gubbins! Would hate this area to turn into a nanny state with chlorine and fluoride added willy-nilly to our water, it has to be said.

In reply to Sircumfrins: Im mostly not trolling exept for the South africa thing and a few other bits thrown in as wind-ups. What im doing is presenting the argument of an ill-informed person. I leave the decsioin to those who know as i dont want to waste time understanding everything that effects me. However, there are obvious economic benefits to adding flouride, i dont want these to be endangered by people whove read a few books and watched a youtube clip thinking they know better than experts employed to make such decisions, that is why ive argued against you.

In reply to Simon4:


I agree with your point, although the fact remains that in that instance nanny did know best.

In reply to thomasadixon: Thalidomde????? Excuse me, Flouridation of water has been road tested for about 40 years with no noticeable bad side effects.

In reply to dinkypen: Here in Spain virtually nobody drinks the tap water, everybody collects their drinking water fron 'fonts' or buys bottled because the tap water is often unfit to drink, I would love to have regular reliable drinkable tap water, and yes please with flouride.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

>

OK David Brent, in this case the assumption is, of course, not only true but self-evident.

At 1ppm fluoride, the incidence and degree of fluorosis is negligable. There's a stack of data a mile high going back to Trendley Dean in the 30s and 40s (but of course you know this if you the slightest interest in the subject). The evidence for brittle bones, osteosarcoma etc at anything like the recommended dose is non-existent. Again, look at the epidemiology from naturally occurring fluoride populations. Fluorosis at higher levels is well-known and to be expected, but to object on those grounds is like objecting to vitamin A, aspirin or oxygen because too high a dose is bad for you.

As for your human rights, does that mean that residents in areas where fluoride is a natural constituent of their drinking water have the right to have it removed? Of course, in areas where it is too high it is removed to an optimal level.

Fluoride at 1ppm produces a huge and enduring beneficial effect on the population as a whole, and any infringement of your human rights in regulating to an optimal level a naturally-occurring constituent of the water supplied is trivial. Do you object to the stuff they put in flour and bread (by law)?

I think that both national and local government has been pretty spineless in standing up to the hysterical mis-information of the Pure Water fundamentalists and I'm glad to see that they are now committed to enforcing fluoridation where it isn't being done.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Ah, a trivial transgression of rights in the cause of a much more important public good. At what point will that include DNA databases and a free tracking chip the day you're born?

In reply to Sircumfrins:

I agree with the benefits of fluoride, but I don't agree with forced medication.

There might be some situation whereby fluoride has a negative effect on an individual. What then?

In reply to Ridge:

Incidently I cannot see why anybody other than a criminal is against DNA databases in the same way I cannot see why anything other than dental caries is against safe additions to our water to prevent it.

In reply to Ridge:

Actually, let's back-track a bit. What 'rights' exactly do you think are infringed by being conveniently provided with high-quality drinking water that happens to contain a minute trace of a naturally-occurring element that gives proven and substantial health benefits?

The DNA database issue is an entirely separate argument and not comparable. Actually, it does have one thing in common. It requires you to have some idea of what you are talking about before any kind of sensible debate can take place.

In reply to Sircumfrins: I say no, based purely on the fact that the lass has to spend £1k every 10 years to have new enamels fitted to her front teeth which have been discoloured by floride in the water.

In reply to Jon Dittman:

Caused by drinking water at 1 ppm? There are lot of other things that cause enamel to be discoloured.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

My statement was aimed more at your glib assertion that anything that is for the 'greater good' is acceptable, regardless of it's infringement on the individual. I also seem to recall you first used the term 'rights' so perhaps you'd like to educate me on what they are?

Although I agree that there are proven benefits, you are still adulterating the water supply for purposes other than rendering it fit for consumption. What's the next step? Vitamins? Personally I think contraceptives would be a great idea for the 'greater good'. As for the 'naturally occuring element' bit, what has that to do with the price of fish? Lead is a naturally occuring element, so what?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Well it's not clear there are any benefits at all. Some studies say there are others don't. And it's one thing to have it in toothpaste which you spit out afterwards, quite another to have it in what you drink.

The rights infringed are those of any kind of medical treatment. A person has the right to refuse medication if they wish. In areas where water is fluoridated those living there don't have that choice anymore. What's even worse is that this is the enforced medication of healthy people.

Tooth decay is down to poor diet NOT lack of fluoride. Obese people might choose to eat low calorie saccharin and sorbital foods but normal weight people shouldn't be forced to.

If fluoridation is so great then people should have the choice to fluoridate there own water if they want to. But not force that on everyone else just because it's convenient.

In reply to stp:

I actually agree with you.



































I'm off for a little lie down.

In reply to Jon Dittman: Hey Jon. Your situation is a perfect example why fluoridated water should not be added.
If anyone drinks high levels of fluoridated water (even less than 1 part per million) they will get fluorosis.
To fix the problems associated with fluorosis costs alot of money! How would the poorer people & elderly afford to pay this...especially seeing as these are the people who would be most vulnerable?
If fluoride is added then how can poor people & the elderly afford to buy bottled water if they do not want to drink fluoridated water?
The costs incurred to the individual will be astronomical!

In reply to Dave Garnett: "Actually, let's back-track a bit. What 'rights' exactly do you think are infringed by being conveniently provided with high-quality drinking water that happens to contain a minute trace of a naturally-occurring element that gives proven and substantial health benefits?"

I'll name 2 quickly:
1) Freedom of Choice
2) Freedom from discrimination

In reply to stp:

OK, it is true that some socioeconomic classes benefit more than other (ie the lower ones). You can get the same benefit from scrupulous oral hygiene with fluoride toothpaste, topical fluoride application and fissure sealant. Or, you could just put in the water what many areas helpfully have naturally and everyone benefits.

>And it's one thing to have it in toothpaste which you spit out >afterwards, quite another to have it in what you drink.
>
Well yes, but the point is ideally to have it incorporated throoughout the enamel during amelogenesis. Otherwise you are just trying to force a high concentration into the outermost mm of exposed enamel. Which is OK until this layer is breached...


What about the medicated bread you eat? You mean you didn't know?


But with fluoridation plus a modicum of tooth brushing you can reduce dental caries to zero. I don't see too many kids around here with a dmf (or even a dmfs) of zero. It used to be common in Birmingham.

It's not just convenient, it's cheap. And think through the implications of that.

In reply to Sircumfrins:


I'm interested in Jon's example, which is puzzling, but even if this were the explanation compare the cost of fixing the rare minor cosmetic problem with the cost of treating rampant tooth decay? Which do you think causes more restorative work?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Are you referring to the vitamin C (aka ascorbic acid) in some breads? Well it's there as preservative not a medicine. And there's a range organic breads that don't have it. You don't even have to eat bread if you don't want to (many people don't) and it certainly doesn't flow into your home the way water does.



Well the implications are pretty disturbing. Anything that's thought to, on average, improve one's health/reduce harm should be forced on everyone. To reduce climbing accidents to zero and thus save NHS costs we could ban all dangerous sports.

When it comes to freedom versus saving money I'd choose the the former every time.

In reply to Dave Garnett: Hey Dave, you seriously need to check this out if you are interested in the debate...each side gets to state their case (by people who are very knowledgeable in the pro/ anti fluoride field of research) and then you can decide.
It's an hour long...if your excuse is you don't have the time or don't care then don't post again because you could have used the time more productively.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=82194292805035136&hl=en

In reply to stp: Valid points stp...at the end of the CHOICE is the key word in this debate and if they go ahead with their plans that will be brushed aside.
What do you call a government that disregards your fundamental human rights? Scary to think...

In reply to stp: Actually, he's probably talking about folic acid in flour. You mean you REALLY didn't know?

coming soon to a bakery near you

http://www.food.gov.uk/healthiereating/folicfortification/

In reply to Sircumfrins:
Fluorine in water at trace levels.... kids in poor areas with good teeth. The reverse holds. Freedom of choice... whose exactly? Deprived kids with rotten teeth? Middle class conspiracy theorists?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I agree with your response - the fuss about MMR was based on poor quality research, reported in a sensationalised fashion. There was no good reason to suppose that the MMR vaccine carried significantly greater risks than the monovalent ones.

On the other hand, there was no reason to suppose that MMR offered any greater benefits than the monovalents, while the risks that were widely advertised were almost entirely those associated with Measles, which were quite invalidly extended to Mumps and Rubella, i.e. the 3 vaccines were not in any way synergistic due to being given simultaneously. In country after country, the reduction in serious mortality/morbidity due to measles followed the introduction of monovalent vaccines, nothing whatever to do with MMR. (Mumps and Rubella are really quite different situations, despite the attempts to elide the 3 viruses). The only measles benefit from MMR was that the further campaign led (initially, until the backlash), to increased vaccination uptake.

The reason for the triple vaccine being used was economic, cost saving. Which is no sort of condemnation, since achieving the same health benefit at reduced cost is an entirely reasonable thing for the NHS to do, hence my suggestion that parents who were reluctant to accept the standard, perfectly reasonable advice, should have been charged for the priviledge of fussing about getting the monovalents. Charged, but not persecuted and vilified, then the controversy and resultant significant drop in uptake of measles vaccination could have been avoided.

In reply to Dave Garnett: Sorry about the MMR diversion, though it is genuinely comparable. The point seems to have been comprehensively put, that even when health advice is good, people have the right to refuse it, be it MMR or flouridation in water. To use the "it costs the NHS money if you don't" argument is putting the cart before the horse. The NHS exists to serve the public, not the other way around. In fact, even within the NHS, they still attach importance (in theory at least), to "informed consent" from patients.

So it really does come down to saying that "nanny knows best" is just not good enough as a basis for public health policy in a mature democracy.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Daves answer might of coure be that he already knows the arguments, possibly better than anybody in this showcase you posted.

In reply to Al Evans: Its just a giant money making scam, why do we need the nanny state to tell us what needs to be in water, if they start pumping this shit out for us to drink millions of consumers will only drink bottled water, why do you think they've got all this fluoride? because its a by product of manufacturing, so what do they try to do; pump it into the water as someone's will be getting very rich of the deal; it doesn't need to be there, just because someone hasn't been taught that if they don't clean their teeth they'll drop out, doesn't mean we need this shit in the water supply!!! It's about education, not programming and manipulation, The free world f*ck right!!! How do you think Hilter got so many people to fight his war? by Brainwashing perhaps? Don't you understand just because we fought a war to stop the spread of fascism, doesn't mean fascism isn't being spread right under our noses by the vampires currently in power!

In reply to johnj: "w do we need the nanny state to tell us what needs to be in the water"
Because this 'shit' does you no harm, is minimal in cost and saves millions in dental costs for the great majority of the citizenship. Equally we could decide not to put other chemicals into our water and have thousands dying of stomach problems.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

She did a stint in South Africa. No idea how many parts per million that is, if at all, but I would be pretty p1ssed off about it if it were me.

From another point of view, given that we have fantastic water quality I would say no. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Campagnes of getting our children to brush their teeth properly would surely be better in the long term. You say it is only one part per million. I have no idea what that means, but I do know that silicon is doped at similar levels to make an insulator into a semi-conductor. Just because the comtamination is tiny does not mean the effects are neglegable.

In reply to Jon Dittman:
Campagnes of getting our children to brush their teeth properly would surely be better in the long term.

Again an elitist answer, can you imagine, (sorry about this classism), a single parent struggling to bring up 4 kids on a housing estate having making kids clean their teeth in flouride toothpaste a priority.
These are just the kids that will benefit most from flouridisation.

In reply to Al Evans: "Because this 'shit' does you no harm, is minimal in cost and saves millions in dental costs for the great majority of the citizenship"...Al I respect you as a person and your right to say what you want...but you are horrbily deluded if you believe this. You clearly aren't informed about this topic. If they put this in the water (and an even if they can get everyone to drink enough to "benefit" them...the amount it costs to fix the effects of fluorosis, on it's own, as a result of ingesting to much fluoridated water, is immense and poor people won't be able to afford it and they will be discriminated against for this...especially younger kids, because we know how cruel they can be to each other at that age.) they will be causing more problems than if they had just left the water alone. I think that it's terrible that poor people will be made to suffer the most because they can't afford bottled water.
Who has the most to gain from it? The dentists, because they will have more expensive treatments to push onto the richer people wanting to hide their fluorosis covered teeth...and who is backing this agenda whole heartedly? The Dental Association...just a coincidence nothing to worry about.
Do you enjoy human rights Al?
Right to safe drinking water, freedom of choice, right to say no to medication, freedom from discrimination? If these rights are ignored what does that tell us about the attitude of the people running it? Dictatorship...wake up.

In reply to Al Evans: Do you swallow your toothpaste Al? Does anyone swallow their toothpaste? Why don't they? Cos it's harmful...imagine how harmful it is to ingest it constantly.
Fluoride is an external applicant to fix the tooths exterior...how ingesting fluoride going to help? Makes no sense.

In reply to Al Evans: At your age really you should be a little wiser!

In reply to johnj:

I am, your commonsense however leaves a lot to be desired, tabloid emotion, read Dave's posts, he knows what he is talking about.

In reply to Al Evans:

Are you on crack? A simple at morning and night brush teeth with mother of even which ever father they have for the week, is elitist and pumping shit into the water supply so they can veg out on cheep super strength cider and watch trash TV isnt?? wtf!!!

In reply to Al Evans:

if thats what you thin keep your head in the sand, its not about us, it's about the kids who haven't been born yet!!!

In reply to johnj:

You mean the ones that might have good teeth? And absolutely no adverse effects from fluoridisation?

In reply to johnj:

John, that was offensive, and no I have never tried crack and I am on nothing, its so bad its not even a cheap shot and implies you have lost the argument.

In reply to johnj: More comments like that and I will report you to the mods!

In reply to Al Evans: How about this one, because everyone round here back then had bad teeth, I know what sink estates are about don't worry growing up in Barnsley in the 70's, anyway me mam thought i should have fluoride treatment when i was young as me dad had all his teeth out at 18, just because he didn't clean them!

So i had this fluoride treatment like they now do with the whitening stuff, stripped all the enamel off from about age 8, and from then on with brown teeth it's been a real battle to keep hold of my teeth, I've had so much work done on them it's unbelievable, meanwhile back in the real world many of my friends have had nothing done to their teeth at all, nothing!! so please keep your patronising and glib comments to yourself in future!

In reply to Al Evans: Do it, if it makes you happy, I've never been banned before, so if you really are that petty in future I'll look on you as others see you, rather than the star that i think you really are, by the way sorry if the comment offended you, but you are talking crazy imho!

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Did you read the bit above where the stack of research about 1ppm fluoride giving a negligable incidence of fluorosis was mentioned? Have you read it, or are you still basing your argument on believing one side of a debate published on youtube?

I can't see what the fuss is about, to be honest. I'm reasonably happy that the incidence of fluorosis will be close to nil, and whilst hopefully I won't see much benefit assuming I brush my teeth properly anyway if it saves money in the long run then I reckon thats as good a use of my taxes as anything. And lets face it, we all drink chlorinated water, we eat bread with folic acid added to it, all this sort of stuff.

I just can't see "millions" of customers switching to drinking bottled water. I just don't see it. I think that thats a big stir up to get people interested in conspiracies about fascists and bottled water companies and dentists being in league to boost profits. I mean, come on, it sounds ridiculous...........

AJM

In reply to AJM: Its not about the conspiracy, it just doesn't need to be there, simple, as if they can do this what comes next, wake up while you still can!

In reply to johnj:

I'm still wating for an apology for the crack comment, anyhow, that does your septum in not your teeth. Your apochraphyl story is, I would guess, unique. Not that I am accusing you of lying to make your point of course, just that it flies in the face of all known facts.
Sorry, I now see that you have apologised for the Crack comment. Thank you.

In reply to johnj: John, I just cannot see your point against flouride, to me it doesn't make sense, its like a scare story in the 'Sun', but lets agree to differ, I don't want to fall out.
Al

In reply to Al Evans:


Can you understand where the comment came from though what does this mean in your mind, because to me it seems a little speshul, why would i make a story up about my teeth don't you think I've had to live with them since then, away, cos i'm like dead kool I decided to dive of the front of my bike aged 11 to knock my front teeth out so i could get some new shiney plastic teeth.. Look little johnyJ he's got magic teeth, ride johny ride ;+)

In reply to Al Evans: As above, it doesn't need to be there, simple, if folk don't want to clean their teeth so they can get the authentic trailer trash look, that's their choice, because if they do this what comes next? Al think about your kids kids and the world we'll give to them, because I don't like the way its going, but if you don't agree with me, that's cool after all it's your choice, but it doesn't mean I'm going to change my view either.. Take it easy fella!

In reply to johnj:

Chlorine doesn't "need" to be in the water either, but I'd prefer it was there than deal with the consequences...........

Normally I'm a fan of the thin end of the wedge points of principle arguments, but in this case it just seems such a daft thing to complain against that I think calling them in an argument like this undermines the very principles you are trying to support.

Also, I ask the question of what the reason for it being put there is if it isn't to do the stated purpose? I fail to see any other sensible reasons - "it makes you docile", "its all about the dental company's profits" etc are just not answers I can see any sense behind. and are frankly laughable.

AJM

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Actually, that's exactly we got our kids to do, given there was no fluoride in the water. You can give them drops every day, but it's a pain and easier to just get them to sawllow the toothpaste.



Well, applying in to the surface is the second best way of doing it. Having it incorporated throughout makes more sense and is less labour-intensive. The point is that the kids who most need topical fluoride are the ones least likely to get it.

In reply to AJM: But you're missing the point, for better or for worse Chlorine is in the water, Flouride is not, we've got this far without needing it. why now? There's a saying round here what the council use, if it aint broke, lets fix it away, reminds me of this sham!

In reply to Jon Dittman:

Me too, but I seriously doubt it was caused by drinking water with the correct level of fluoride in it.


But it is broke, Jon, the standard of dental health round here is horrible compared to what it used to be in central Birmingham in the 80s. Dentistry barely exists on the NHS for more than the most basic drilling and filling. I know educated middle class families with kids with teeth full of holes, and we should be doing something about it.

>Just because the comtamination is tiny does not mean the effects are neglegable.

Correct. The effects aren't negligable, they are can be spectacular. It's the ill-effects that are negligable.

In reply to johnj:


I've had it done several times and it certainly doesn't 'strip enamel off'. Either something was done terribly badly, or you have an underlying problem with your enamel that topical fluoride was never going to fix.

In reply to Sircumfrins:


At last, here we are, it's all a good old-fashioned conspiracy. If you believe this then you are truly beyond reason.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Which illustrates the point perfectly, this summer with all the flooding some days the water stinks, too much back pressure means that dirty unfiltered water gets occasional pumped into the supply, and now they're talking about adding something at parts per million to be administrated by people on below the average national pay, and think mistakes with quantities won't be made, just before people cant be arsed to clean their teeth properly... Bring on the nanny state!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

see my point above, badly administrated and its toxic, proper toxic!!

In reply to Al Evans:
>

Yes, I can, single parents and kids on housing estates aren't necessarily unclean! What a patronising comment.

In reply to Simon4:

I completely agree with your comments about the monovalent demand from the worried well should have been handled. However, I think a degree of compulsion can be useful in the case of vaccination too. In many countries a child must present a vaccination certificate before they are admitted to school, for instance.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Why should we? It's up to the individual (or their parents) to sort this out, not the state. Just like it's up to the individual to lose weight, not the state to force them into it.

The NHS is care free at the point of need, not an organisation to enforce perfect health on the populace.

In reply to johnj:

Even at toxic levels it doesn't do this. Acids do this, and I have no idea what the procedure actually was.

The bottom line is, do we basically trust professional bodies like the BDA, the BMA and the Department of Health to have our best interests at heart and to rely on rigorously tested and researched medicines and treatments? The answer is either yes or no.

In reply to johnj:
"just before people cant be arsed to clean their teeth properly..."

When I was a wee kid my mum kindly put fluoride drops into my water and as a result I don't have any fillings. Some kids aren't that lucky and this is not their fault at all. I don't think children should have to suffer for their parents actions (or inactions). Think about the children!

In reply to thomasadixon:

Do you understand the concept of social or preventative medicine? Do you think medicine should always be reactive? That we shouldn't do any screening, cancel all the well woman clinics and fail to provide a cheap and effective preventative measure that can save a huge amount of misery and unpleasantness. All because of paranoia and a distorted view of individual freedom?

In reply to Dave Garnett: There is no bottom line, what are calling the bottom line is just an line in the sand, it's surplus to the requirements of drinking water, if you want it get a kit and do it your self, why should millions of people drink what they don't need or require, just so lazy people can carry on been lazy, when did the underclass ever make the rules before, talk about the tail wagging the dog!

In reply to climbingem: I am thinking about the children, its about education, not about ease and convenience, what are they teaching them at school these day how to be a reality tv star? shouldn't this be on the national curriculum, teeth cleaning and basic hygiene?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Medicine doesn't necessarily need to always be reactive but there should always be a choice in whether to take it or not. You can not be screened and not go to a clinic if you choose to - it's not reasonable to expect people to have to go out of their way to get basic clean water.


"paranoia", "distorted view", do you have to resort to emotive argument?

In reply to johnj:
"shouldn't this be on the national curriculum, teeth cleaning and basic hygiene?"

Teeth cleaning is taught at school but I don't think it stops tooth decay as effectively as fluoride does. Fluoride has stopped my teeth from decaying, which is why I believe that other children should be given the same treatment. Perhaps it would be better to provide every parent with fluoride drops? But this probably wouldn't work.

In reply to climbingem:

Maybe that is a much better solution, because its the kids we're talking about, after all once you get to 16 if you havent figured out if you don't clean you teeth they'll rot away, well maybe you'll never learn.

So putting flouride in the water because maybe 10-20% of the total population require it is wrong on every level.

But then even if you did fluoride the water would it make any differencing anyhow, after all if you're going to live on a diet of junk food, pepsi max, and skool super, do you even need water, which reinforces the point even further the ones who really need it won't get any benefit away.

In reply to johnj:

If this were to happen (which, of course, it doesn't), and if mixing drinking water with waste water increased its fluoride content (which, in areas where it needed to be added deliberately, it wouldn't) then drinking water with higher than recommended levels of fluoride for a few day (which wouldn't do any harm anyway, of course) would be the least of your worries.

In reply to Dave Garnett: Don't worry if the powers that be deem it to be I won't be drinking the shit anyhow.

In reply to Jon Dittman:

Rather late, it occurs to me to ask how old was she when she was in South Africa. Presumably at some period between birth and about 2 years of age, if it's her front teeth that were affected.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

My grandfather was one of the leader proponents of fluridation of tap water in UK in the 50s and 60s. I don't know the full history, but according to my Dad he was one of the people that made it happen.

In reply to Owen W-G:

He must be turning in his grave to see how much of his good work has been lost in the new Dark Ages.

In reply to Dave Garnett: If it was so good why'd they stop it?

In reply to johnj:

Because of the drip, drip, drip of the Pure Water Association and fellow fantastists and conspiracy theorists. Plus the newly privatised water companies valued their profits over any sense of social responsibility and wouldn't risk any kind of controversy or legal challenge (which of course they would have won).

In reply to thomasadixon:

What the eeeeffffinnggg el are you on about, I never said or even implied that. You really must be clutching at extremely bendy straws to say that.

In reply to Dave Garnett: Dave , give up, sensible just isn't going to work with these fantasists, lets work on people that are realistic and see the advantages with no adverse consequences.

In reply to Dave Garnett: Of course bring the argument down to fantasy and conspiracy, why do many people from back then have false teeth then? and our generation don't? nothing to do with the water supply, it all comes back to proper oral hygine, but you keep trotting out the mantra for the braindead or bone idle to follow ;+)

In reply to johnj: Jesus Christ, I didn't want to answer this thread anymore but that is so daft it requies an answer, no its just so obvious and untrue that I refuse to give one.

In reply to Al Evans:

Well stop answering then, here are the basics;

clean you teeth properly two or three times a day and your teeth will be fine

don't clean you teeth feel the fur then go to the dentist for a little drill action

LEAVE THE WATER SUPPLY ALONE!!!

In reply to Al Evans:

"Again an elitist answer, can you imagine, (sorry about this classism), a single parent struggling to bring up 4 kids on a housing estate having making kids clean their teeth in flouride toothpaste a priority."

What exactly did you mean by this then?

In reply to johnj:

I'm not missing the point at all.

Chlorine is needed no more in the water than fluoride is. Millions of people in the world live without it. Its simply better and cheaper if it is there. And as pointed out, we had fluoride in the water a while back anyway.

You believe that forcing people to ingest fluoride is worse than forcing them to ingest chloride, but can't offer any reason why other than "because this is the way it is".

If you believe fluoride overrides your personal choice as to what you drink, then so does chloride. Your argument isn't coherent.

AJM

In reply to Al Evans: Hey Al...if you have the time check this out:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=317953&v=1#x4692085

In reply to Dave Garnett:


A fair point about the decline in standards of dentistry, but when you compare our water supply to the fact that 4 in 10 people in the world have absolutely no sanitation at all, and that includes a bucket - we are doing pretty well.

I remember having a nurse come round when I was at primary school and tell us all about why we should brush our teeth properly. Worked for me. I am sure it can work for kids of all classes too.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I don't know the details. All I know is that the discolouration of her teeth (and it is all her teeth, but most notibly on the front ones which are now enamalled) was caused as a direct result of floride. Whether that was in the water or toothpaste I don't know, but I have always used floride toothpaste and don't have the same problem so it must have come from somewhere else - ergo, the water supply?

In reply to AJM:


Yes, it is. Chlorine is required to provide basic clean water (that other's don't have this is irrelevant). Flouride is to provide a purported health benefit. They're not the same.

In reply to thomasadixon: Actually, they are!

In reply to Al Evans:

Great argument there Al, I note no answer to my question to you above.

In reply to thomasadixon:

How is it irrelevant? It proves that chlorine is not a necessary addition to our water supply. We can survive without it therefore it is not necessary.

Also, you are wrong - chlorine is not required to provide basic clean water. There are plenty of other ways to do it. Iodine and boiling are two of the more obvious ones. Chlorine is not required at all, it is simply the best compromise method given the twin goals of cost and efficiency.

We are talking about adding things which are not naturally present in most of our water supplies.

Chloride is added for the policy purpose of killing germs in our water and hence reducing the incidence of all the nasty water-borne diseases of this world.
Fluoride is added for the policy purpose of increasing our dental health.

I fail to see a difference. They are both added as a matter of healthcare policy in order to improve the health of the population and as a cost effective way of dealing with the respective problems of general healthcare and dental healthcare.

AJM

In reply to AJM:

Okay, it's one method of cleaning water, providing clean water is the requirement.


The reason why they are added is important.


I do. It's the difference between injecting vitamins into an apple to provide health benefits and washing the apple to get rid of contaminants.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Agreed - and if you saw my lasses teeth (behind her very expensive enamels) caused by too much flouride somewhere along the line, you might think again.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

I'd prefer Vimto

In reply to thomasadixon:

Exactly. I'll concede that there will be negligable ill effects from fluoridation, but I'm yet to be convinced of the benefits. Just how much water will Al's apocryphal lower working class family ingest? Do you think they drink tap water? I'd guess at stripey value cola. Water used in cooking? I don't think microwave chips require boiling prior to use. There will be very little effect on those most at need. A far more effective method would be to dose them a school, a bit like the old days of school milk to get calcium into us council kids. Or perhaps make it a requirement that it's added to Rola Cola and turkey twizzlers.

It's not adding something to make the water potable, it's mass medication. What's next, Ritalin to keep the kiddies quiet?

In reply to AJM: Of course my argument is coherent, the water supply doesn't need fluoride simple as that!

In reply to Ridge:

The figure was originally derived by looking at populations in different areas with different natural levels of fluoride. By observation, populations where the water was about 1 ppm had noticably less dental decay with no marking of the enamel. In areas with more fluoride, there was minor fluorosis (white line and spots), or more major fluorosis (brown mottling up to pitting and failure of proper amelogenesis). They very reasonably concluded that perhaps 1 ppm fluoride was a good thing. This all based on epidemiology, looking at large populations with different daily and seasonal consumptions.

I just don't understand this ridiculous thin end of the wedge stuff about mass medication. The fact is that it isn't Ritalin or bromide or contraceptives or truth serum, it's fluoride. At the right dose it doesn't do you nay harm and would do the majoroity of the population some good. How many of you have zero fillings? Of those that do, how many grew up drinking fluoridated water?

It won't cure all dental disease, most teeth will still be lost through periodontal disease. You still need to clean your teeth. But it would be a huge help and it has to be just about the best researched public health measure ever.

In reply to Dave Garnett: Have you spent much time in the third world, have you seen how white and healthy their teeth are, nothing to do with fluoride, it's because they don't eat a diet of processed shite, but if you want to fill your water supply with toxins feel free, just don't try to convince the sane people that it's a good idea!

In reply to Dave Garnett: I really don't understand how you don't see this Dave...do you work for a company that will benefit from this or something?
"At the right dose it doesn't do you nay harm and would do the majoroity of the population some good."
What exactly is the right dose!? Fair enough you say 1ppm but at what quantity per day? 500ml, 1l, 5l? How much water are we supposed to drink a day? How would this effect small kids compared to adults (we all know kids have to take smaller amounts of medication then adults)? How can we be sure the amount placed will disolve and disperse evenly around the different cities, counties etc? How does this effect people with kidney problems? Pregnant ladies? How can we make sure the people who need it the most consume the right amount to help them?
"How many of you have zero fillings? Of those that do, how many grew up drinking fluoridated water?"
I have zero fillings! I have grown up drinking non-fluoridated water...and you know why I don't have fillings? My mother didn't allow me to eat sweets when I was younger and taught me how to brush my teeth and wouldn't allow me to go to sleep until I had. Is that so difficult to do? It's the parents duty to instill good habits into their kids not the government.
"it has to be just about the best researched public health measure ever." Clearly not Dave because the other side of the story that you refuse to acknowledge does not get represented as much as the pro-fluoride side.

I would like to know what your opinion is on human rights Dave...go on...tell me. Are human rights over rated? Do you like the fact that the government is turning into a nanny state?

Have you watched this debate yet between 2 experts? Probably not because you have your blinkers on...or you're actually the one pushing the agenda.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=82194292805035136&hl=en

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Quantities per day - Dave mentioned in his last post that this was a large scale study covering regional areas where a variety of different consumptions could safely be presumed to occur. Children, adults, pregnant women and all.

As regards your youtube video, I regret to say I haven't the time at the minute. I would say though that anyone can raise one person for each side of the argument. I would be genuinely interested to see what proportion of the active research scientists in the field support it and are against it - saying you can get one from each side doesn't in any way imply a balanced view within the community at large. Also, the relative credentials might be interesting too. As I say, I am doubtful that the measure would be being suggested without the support of a majority of the scientists in the field.

What exactly do you think the reason for introducing it is then, if it isn't for the reasons stated? Why would they go to the expense if the science wasn't genuinely in their favour? Thats why I have difficulty with this argument, the only counter arguments I've heard are to increase population docility and to make dentists a fast buck, and frankly my reasonableness test discounts either of those.

AJM

In reply to johnj:

Thats repeating a mantra, not putting forward a coherent argument I'm afraid.

AJM

Here's another good video...30mins long.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7319752042352089988

In reply to AJM: Frankly if you don't have time to research this...but have time to reply to individual replies...then you are a hypocrit and should probably waste your time elsewhere because by repeating the same questions over and over you're wasting my time.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

I'd take offence at being called a hypocrite, but coming from someone who clearly can't remember things they've written it doesn't hurt so much.

If you could point out to me where in the thread you have answered any of the questions as regards the relative numbers and credentials of the scientists in the pro and anti camps then I would be very grateful. I haven't as yet seen any direct answers to those questions.

I was asking why you thought they were doing it to give you a chance to try and put forward a credible reason. I was being generous. Since I haven't seen any of them (you seem, from my reading to believe both the docility and the fast buck ideas), I will draw my own conslusions.

As for the video, once bitten, twice shy. I made the mistake of watching 10 minutes of that drivel you posted on the income tax thread a while back and I've somehow gone off links to random videos on youtube as credible sources of information.

AJM

In reply to AJM:

Be afraid cos if they can do this whats next?

and you're adding what exactly?

In reply to johnj:


You see, thats an argument I could almost live with. I don't necessarily think it holds true, but the thin edge of the wedge argument has something going for it at least.

The thing that gets me is why people are claiming that it won't work, because the logical question that pops into my mind is "why are they doing it then?"

• exercising power for the sake of it?
• to make us all more docile?
• to make the dentists a fast buck?
• because they don't know it won't work?
• and so on

And I can't come up with an answer that makes sense. I don't really buy any of the first three I've listed. And if the evidence against it and the numbers of people who don't believe it are as strong as Sircumfrins etc seems to believe, then I can't believe they don't know if it won't work. I'm therefore left with the fact that I can't think of anything else and so the most reasonable remaining argument is that it probably will work, the majority of scientists do in fact support it, and its being done with the aim of generally improving our health.

Whether you think they should be doing that is an entirely different matter of course, I don't see a problem with it whereas you obviously do, but I just can't find a credible reason for why they are doing it other than because the consensus is that it will do what they think it will.


To the water, or the argument

AJM

In reply to AJM:

That's cool, I understand what you are saying, I'd just rather have the choice of the water I get to drink rather than have to drink what the powers that be deem is good for me.

So ultimately to me this means I've fallen for the scam because if fluoride is in the water supply, i then will choose not to drink the mains supply as much as i can and drink bottled water or go and find somewhere nice to live with a natural spring supply.

In reply to AJM: "As for the video, once bitten, twice shy. I made the mistake of watching 10 minutes of that drivel you posted on the income tax thread a while back and I've somehow gone off links to random videos on youtube as credible sources of information."
Seeing as you brought this up again then could you care to explain to me why "person" is written as 'person' and has a bracketed comment afterwards? Obviously "person" has a different definition compared to an english dictionary and MAY lend credence to what I was asking...if you notice from that thread I asked a question about this because I didn't know...apparently it's wrong to ask questions these days. Please don't respond to this and thereby doing so hijack this thread...merely take a look at the HMRC link I provided and see for yourself.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/freedom/info-disclose.htm

Seeing as Dave hasn't answered my previous questions could you care to elaborate on my questions then seeing as you have taken it upon yourself to champion the pro-fluoride argument.
Here is the questions I asked...(Please note: where I say Dave please feel free to take it that I'm talking to you now instead...thanks)
"At the right dose it doesn't do you nay harm and would do the majoroity of the population some good."
What exactly is the right dose!? Fair enough you say 1ppm but at what quantity per day? 500ml, 1l, 5l? How much water are we supposed to drink a day? How would this effect small kids compared to adults (we all know kids have to take smaller amounts of medication then adults)? How can we be sure the amount placed will disolve and disperse evenly around the different cities, counties etc? How does this effect people with kidney problems? Pregnant ladies? How can we make sure the people who need it the most consume the right amount to help them?
"How many of you have zero fillings? Of those that do, how many grew up drinking fluoridated water?"
I have zero fillings! I have grown up drinking non-fluoridated water...and you know why I don't have fillings? My mother didn't allow me to eat sweets when I was younger and taught me how to brush my teeth and wouldn't allow me to go to sleep until I had. Is that so difficult to do? It's the parents duty to instill good habits into their kids not the government.
"it has to be just about the best researched public health measure ever." Clearly not Dave because the other side of the story that you refuse to acknowledge does not get represented as much as the pro-fluoride side.

I would like to know what your opinion is on human rights Dave...go on...tell me. Are human rights over rated? Do you like the fact that the government is turning into a nanny state? What do you think of freedom of choice? Right to safe and clean drinking water? Freedom from discrimination? Right to say no to medication?

Have you watched this debate yet between 2 experts? Probably not because you have your blinkers on...or you're actually the one pushing the agenda.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=82194292805035136&hl=en

In reply to Sircumfrins:

You missed the bit in Dave and I's posts dealing with this then? To repeat, what Dave said was that the studies had been done on regional populations (regions defined by the amounts of fluoride present in their drinking water) and will therefore have included a very wide spread of water intakes, lifestyles, ages, pregnancy statuses etc. Its based around large scale statistical studies. We can say that in general the dental healthcare of the population is increased at concentrations of fluoride at the levels proposed. The fact that this increase in dental health is seen is regardless of the fact that some people will have drunk more than others, some will have been pregnant or children at the time, and so on.

I'd be interested to find out actually, I do wonder if its the case that the intake level might be strictly down to concentration anyway, depending on how dependent on osmosis the uptake is (I'm not a biochemical processes expert by training and so the actual uptake process is not something I'm qualified to comment on).

In answer to how you can force the people who need it most to consume the right amount of it, I doubt you can. Not without physically administering it to them anyway. But by making sure they are exposed to some of it rather than none of it you make a step in the right direction.

As regards why the anti camp doesn't get as much exposure as the pro, I wonder whether that might be down to the fact its smaller and doesn't have the majority opinion on its side. That would seem a more sensible reason to me than suggesting that the government is deliberately ignoring them in order to spend money on something which isn't necessary.

As regards your last questions.
No I don't think human rights are overrated. I don't think its a very relevant question to this debate though, because I don't really see this as an issue where human rights are being called into question.
Generally I'm a fan of small government but I think the term "nanny state" is so general that it can be used by anyone and everyone who wants to have a whinge about anything.
Freedom of choice is nice sometimes and bad others. As a society we restrict it in many ways at the moment where it is deemed for the good of society. This wouldn't be the first or the most serious of those.
You will still have safe and clean drinking water with or without the fluoride. The chlorine that is artificially added to our water does that for us.
Discrimination is bad, but as with the human rights argument I don't think its particularly relevant from my point of view.
Right to say no to medication.....if you want I suppose. I don't get it really unless we're talking about things like having a dignified death, I have to say, and I certainly don't see that the principle is at stake on account of this - I don't see that because they can add fluoride to your water the will suddenly start ignoring DNR notices.........

AJM

P.S. 'person' - I imagine the likely reason is to show that in this case the definition of the word includes not only our living breathing people but entities that have some presence of their own wihtin law like companies. I certainly can't see any way in which you could read it as excluding real human beings unless you were really minded to.