This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Fluoride

Jump to new

I'm glad you mentioned conflict resolution, sprinter.

"...you should know that you can't make a full assessment in this way" examplifies what I am trying to express to you. You have tendency to view and an inclination to impatiently want to get to the end result. Hence your unwillingness to engage in dialogue and work through details.

If you claim the right to make statements of fact about fluoride and insist that minorities should essentially shut up and do as they are told, you are fair game to identify your behavioural style and assess your motivations.

It is noted that you tend to prefer debate to try to browbeat your opinion of fluoride across as opposed to dialogue which is necessary for conflict resolution.

I'm not going to take the bait on the other stuff, as it doesn't relate to the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
You might be surprised.

Debate is oppositional. Winning is the goal.
Dialogue is collaborative. Finding common ground is the goal.

As for my style of inquisition... the first rule of conflict resolution is to control loud and domineering people so they don't control the floor to impose their will. How that is achieved is a matter of individual assessement.

At this stage it is probably approperiate to lay down the rules of the problem solving approach to conflict resolution. (I didn't make up these rules. They are pretty standard counselling criteria)

  1. Acknowledge there is a conflict.
  2. Identify and acknowledge each partys concerns and goals.
  3. Identify alternative solutions and their consequences for each party.
  4. Select the alternative that best meets the needs, concerns and goals of each party.
  5. Implementing the alternative selected and evaluate the results.
The formula is assertion + cooperation = problem solving.

If you would like to play by the rules we can get down to the business of finding a solution to the fluoride issue.
 
Okay ... I have stopped laughing ... Whiskers you can try and "glean" whatever you like from my post, you can also try to conduct a psychological profile from my 4 or 5 line post. You go right ahead!!

Come on ... you are positing on a share trading forum you obviously have money, go and buy what you need. There are a lot of people out there that couldn't afford the dentist bills, so the fluoride will benefit them.

While you are out buying your new filtration system why don't you go and have a lovely relaxing massage.
 
Martin Sheen says

Fluoridation "Hard to Swallow"
Wednesday, November 07, 2007


It is with deep concern that this city of Malibu, founded on ecologically sound principles, extending even to marine wildlife, should be subject to the upcoming fluoridation of its water supply. Announced casually in a notice in last month's water bill, it strikes us as a violation of assumed democratic process. Within our health-oriented community, choice is and has always been paramount.

To date, no manufacturer of the actual hydrofluosilicic acid to be used has stated that their specific product is effective at reducing tooth decay when swallowed, or safe for all infants, children and the elderly. The public should be able to view actual dated product review documents that prove the manufacturer has earned certification, as California law requires.

Is it not obvious to all that $20 million could much more effectively be spent on nutrition, oral health education and toothbrushes? These funds could be used for a less toxic, more salutary solution. Caries are caused by poor nutrition and poor oral hygiene, not lack of hydrofluosilicic acid, containing lead and arsenic and other carcinogenic and mutagenic substances).

Please note the recent recall of cold medicines and other infant and children's medications. This, alone, should put us on notice about what we allow corporate decisions to shove down our throats and those of our children. We are not lab rats and reject any attempt to be treated as such'

Martin and Janet Sheen


http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2007/11/07/editorial/letters/letter4.txt
 
Someone said don't get caught up on small things. Is having your child's IQ and health detrimentally impacted trivial?


Second Thoughts About Fluoride
by Dan Fagin.
Scientific American, January 2008, pages 74–81

Excerpts


Page 75: KEY CONCEPTS

• Researchers are intensifying their scrutiny of fluoride, which is added to most public water systems in the U.S. Some recent studies suggest that overconsumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland.

• A 2006 report by a committee of the National Research Council recommended that the federal government lower its current limit for fluoride in drinking water because of health risks to both children and adults

Page 75: Most fluoridated water contains much less fluoride than the EPA limit, but the situation is worrisome because there is so much uncertainty over how much additional fluoride we ingest from food, beverages and dental products. What is more, the NRC panel noted that fluoride may also trigger more serious health problems, including bone cancer and damage to the brain and thyroid gland. Although these effects are still unproved, the panel argued that they deserve further study.

Page 75: TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING: Fluoride is in many foods, beverages and dental products. The ubiquity of the cavity-fighting chemical can result in overconsumption, particularly among young children.

Page 78: Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift in the country where the practice began.

Page 79: But enamel fluorosis, except in the severest cases, has no health impact beyond lowered self-esteem: the tooth marks are unattractive and do not go away (although there are masking treatments). The much more important question is whether fluoride’s effects extend beyond altering the biochemistry of tooth enamel formation. Says longtime fluoride researcher Pamela DenBesten of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Dentistry: “We certainly can see that fluoride impacts the way proteins interact with mineralized tissue, so what effect is it having elsewhere at the cellular level? Fluoride is very powerful, and it needs to be treated respectfully.”

Page 80: Clashes over the possible neurological effects of fluoride have been just as intense. Phyllis Mullenix, then at the Forsyth Institute in Boston, set off a firestorm in the early 1990s when she reported that experiments on lab rats showed that sodium fluoride can accumulate in brain tissue and affect animal behavior. Prenatal exposures, she reported, correlated with hyperactivity in young rats, especially males, whereas exposures after birth had the opposite effect, turning female rats into what Mullenix later described as “couch potatoes.” Although her research was eventually published in Neurotoxicology and Teratology, it was attacked by other scientists who said that her methodology was flawed and that she had used unrealistically high dosages. Since then, however, a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ, and research has also suggested a possible mechanism: the formation of aluminum fluoride complexes—small inorganic molecules that mimic the structure of phosphates and thus influence enzyme activity in the brain. There is also some evidence that the silicofluorides used in water fluoridation may enhance the uptake of lead into the brain.

Page 80: The NRC committee concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid—the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism. Although researchers do not know how fluoride consumption can influence the thyroid, the effects appear to be strongly influenced by diet and genetics. Says John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee: “The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored.”

Page 80-81: “What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look,” Doull says. “In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”

Page 81: Opponents of fluoridation, meanwhile, have been emboldened by the NRC report. “What the committee did was very, very important, because it’s the first time a truly balanced panel has looked at this and raised important questions,” says Paul Connett, a chemistry professor at St. Lawrence University and the executive director of the Fluoride Action Network, one of the most active antifluoridation groups world-wide. “I absolutely believe it’s a scientific turning point because now everything’s on the table. Fluoride is the most consumed drug in the U.S., and it’s time we talked about it.”

Page 80: A FLUORIDE DIET
The optimal range for daily intake of fluoride—the level that maximizes protection against tooth decay but minimizes other risks— is generally considered to be 0.05 to 0.07 milligram for each kilogram of body weight. Consuming foods and beverages with large amounts of fluoride can put a diet above this range. Below are typical trace levels of fluoride, measured in parts per million (ppm), found in foods and drinks tested at the University of Iowa College of Dentistry.

etc ...


http://www.flouridealert.org/sc.am.jan.2008.html


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And,

In November, 2006, the respected medical journal Lancet described Fluoride as an 'emerging neurotoxic substance' due to evidence linking flouride to lower IQs in children, and brain damage in animals.
 
Julia,
sorry to hear about the problems you've had with your teeth.

Apart from that, this has been one of the funniest threads I've read in ages
 
Whiskers, if you'll refer back to my post at #142 and my posts following that before the thread degenerated, you will find that I've provided information for each of those so called 'rules' (except number 5- Implementation and evaluation).
 
Sprinter79 said:
Whiskers, if you'll refer back to my post at #142 and my posts following that before the thread degenerated, you will find that I've provided information for each of those so called 'rules' (except number 5- Implementation and evaluation).
Click to expand...

If you don't recognise the legitimacy of these rules... perhaps you can quote what you consider as better rules for counselling or conflict resolution.

Yes, it's the 'evaluation' part that is the BIG problem for the fluoride lobby.

But let's back track a bit.

  1. Acknowledge there is a conflict. Ok

  2. Identify and acknowledge each party's concerns and goals. Ok... well sort of...you tend to trivialise them.

  3. Identify alternative solutions and their consequences for each party. You recognise part of the solution, filtration, but you fail to recognise the financial cost as a burden. Why don't you propose that anyone who wants to filter out the fluoride be given a free filter.

  4. Select the alternative that best meets the needs, concerns and goals of each party. Pay for the filtration system for those who want it is a reasonable compromise. Just telling them to go and buy one does not acknowledge 2 and 3. You are not giving any ground at all to defray their needs -allergic reactions, concerns - far from unamious safety verdict, goals - to avoid fluoride until the issue is proven beyound a reasonable doubt.

  5. Implementing the alternative selected and evaluate the results. For people who are cocerned that they have been misled by the pro fluoride lobby into implementing a trial, where is the evaluation of the results. Please provide anything in the fluoride lobby where they will accept any research that disagrees with their goal and gives people the option to opt out of the fluoridation process if they have new needs, concerns or goals to do so.

    Just declaring it is for the 'greater good' totally dismisses any notion of individual concerns and rights and is completely undemocratic.
 

Thanks Hugh.

You continue to display sly domineering behaviour under the guise of pleasent appearance )) to try to manipulate people. I think the style is akin to con-artist.

Why don't you abide by the 'rules' if you are truely interested in solving the problem.

Otherwise I will call you as I see you at the moment... no doubt a pro fluoride advocate who trivialises peoples concerns trying to CON them into appeasement.
 
BraceFace said:
Well, how misguided am I?
If Martin says that it is bad, then bugger me, it must be.
I wonder what Tom Cruise thinks.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to see that you also trivialise ordinary peoples concerns.

Pretty emotional sort of a guy, probably a bit short tempered too.

Not very becoming of a professional.

What do you do when people come into your surgery wanting a check-up and you tell them, I think you need these two pulled out. Do they get a chance to go away and think about it or do you mock them in the chair and do it anyway?

Would you like to engage in some counselling and conflict resolution?
 
Whiskers, just because I haven't written something down on the forum doesn't mean that I have failed to recognise, acknowledge, comprehend etc, it just means that I haven't written it down. That is why doing any kind of psych profiling, or even conflict resolution, in this way is seriously flawed. It is best done face to face.

For the record, I don't think subsidising fluoride filtration systems is a good use of public money, just because I didn't write words to that effect, doesn't mean I hadn't previously considered it.

In a democracy, majority rules. Didn't we just have an election?

I wonder Whiskers, if I was of the same opinion as you, would you be going to all this trouble?
 
Whiskers said:
I'm sorry to see that you also trivialise ordinary peoples concerns.


Would you like to engage in some counselling and conflict resolution?
Click to expand...

No thanks Sigmund.
You've already given me enough free personality evaluation on this thread.
You're not a Scientologist by any chance are you.

Seriously Whiskers, you need to get out more. The amount of time you spend on this forum psychoanalysing anyone with a contrary opinion to yours is quite amazing.
Get out from behind the computer and go get some sun on your back or go and give your kids a hug.
Don't forget to slip slop slap (not your kids).
 

Best done face to face... but there is plenty of conflict resolution (counselling) done over the phone and internet. Since it is unpractical for us to get face to face isn't it better to do the best we can by other means than not do anything at all. I'm sure you make a few phone calls and emails at work to resolve problems rather than meeting everyone face to face.

In a democracy, majority rules. Didn't we just have an election?
Click to expand...

Yes majority rules BUT, due process is an integral part of democracy. Everyone has the right to vote. In Queenslands case the government didn't announce a fluoridation policy in any election campaign that I am aware of.

Secondly, an essential element of democracy is individual rights and conscientious objections. Let me illistrate.

One who refuses to vote cannot be made to vote against their will. Aus tries to intimidate people to vote by threatening fines if they don't.
People can refuse vaccinations for whatever reasons, but the health system cannot forceably administer them except in special circumstances such as very contageous diseases.

People can even refuse lifesaving blood transfusions on religious grounds and as far as I know they can't be forceably administered without consent.

Yet the pro fluoride loby would mass medicate everyone and deny our civil rights to abstain from medication by conscientious objections. Teeth decay is certainly not a contagious desease. Even some of the contagious deseases that many people refuse to vacinate for are not forceably administered.

Finally, due process just hasn't been followed in the fluoridation issue.

For the record, I don't think subsidising fluoride filtration systems is a good use of public money, just because I didn't write words to that effect, doesn't mean I hadn't previously considered it.
Click to expand...

Why not? It's the public's money, not the premier or gov money. They are entrusted to administer the funds for the peoples benifit. Shouldn't the people have a say in whether or not those who don't want fluoridation should be provided filters? At present there are whole local government areas that don't want fluoridation, but the state gov is wanting to completely override them.

Same as local gov mergers in QLD. Beattie threatened to sack any councils that organised a public vote. Well the votes have now been counted with an overwhelming majority against amalgamation, but new premier Bligh says she is going to merge them anyway.

This Qld gov is not behaving like a democracy at work... this is an autocracy.

I wonder Whiskers, if I was of the same opinion as you, would you be going to all this trouble?
Click to expand...

Obvioulsy not, but I would still be trying to engage those who dissagreed.
 

What's up braceface? You wanted my credentials... I gave them to you... Whats the problem, am I not well enough educated or bright enough for you to associate with?

I'm sorry to see that you continue to trivialise ordinary peoples concerns.

Increasingly not very becoming of a professional. Not a good look for a dentist.

I think you should engage in some stress counselling and conflict resolution?

This is a very important matter to a lot of people, including you... apparently... so I reserve my right to discuss it to my hearts content.

Get out from behind the computer and go get some sun on your back or go and give your kids a hug.
Don't forget to slip slop slap (not your kids).
Click to expand...

What... people aren't allowed to work on their computer now eh! I get all the sun I need to stay healthy and my kids are at work far away... for what it's worth, braceface. Pretty poor attempt at psychoanalysing, just an attempt at an insulting barb thats all.

Braceface, you could save yourself all this angst if you would just address the issues I raised rather than just trying to trivialise and humiliate me.
 
Freeballinginawetsuit said:
Busselton's water tastes pretty damn nice though, supplied by the local water board which has absolutely nothing to do with the state water authority.
Not sure how many large towns have there own water board in west oz, can't be many.
Click to expand...
As opposed to the water just south of Bunbury which tastes like ass and is probably toxic.

We've spoken about this before, but the ground water from Capel through Bunbury is highly contaminated, yet the local people worry about flouride. Beats me. "Look at the big roads Capel Sands built" the locals say. "That's to help with future legal action" I say. But I guess it doesn't matter if birds die when they drink the water, so long as you've got good roads. Lol! I think the Harvey Water Board are going to have some massive future legal problems.

The WA Water Corp is one of the most accountable, responsible, environmentally sound of any corporation in the world. I'd trust them moreso than just about any other body. As opposed to say, Melville City Council, which, through mismanagement has left all of their Canning River tributaries and half of the ground water under the council area heavily polluted with heavy metals and other such problems. Which is going to mean problems for people like me in 30-40-50 years, and for anyone living in the area for the next 100.
 
Whiskers, I wasn't talking about the Qld govt election, i was talking about the fed one to show that just under half of the population didn't vote for Labor.

Let's use Workchoices as an example..... At the first opportunity the public had, they voted out those who brought that legislation in. Qld voters will have that chance.

I much prefer to do things face to face, and I avoid the telephone at work. I take most of my information from non-verbal sources.

There are much better things to do with tax money than subsidise filtration systems.

Like I said before, there are simple solutions.
 
chops_a_must said:
As opposed to the water just south of Bunbury which tastes like ass and is probably toxic.
Click to expand...

Yep I would agree the areas around capel,stratham,ludlow are toxic (quite a few raped the area and buried the heavy metal slag before ILU came about) .
Not that any of the locals moved when the likes of Cable Sands yada yada................dug up there back yards and wacked in some clean fill. The locals thought it perfectly logical to stay on cause the sand under there slabs was O.K. .

Maybe a bit of fluoride in the water might help with the locals odd skin glow and lump on the shoulder!
 

Yeah, we had folks in Boyanup that moved about 10 years ago. I remember at the time that the land was virtually worthless because of these goings on. One had cancer etc. etc. I'd like to see the stats on that in those areas...
 

Unfortunately Qld hasn't got anything like a viable alternative gov at the moment and the way the opposition are still fighting among themselves we probably still won't have next state election.

The present gov knows that and are plainly turning autocratic because they can't remotely see themselves getting voted out. It may be that their autocratic behaviour may get bad enough that people decide that any other option must be better. But we cannot count on that or just sit on our hands while they refuse to consult let alone take any notice of the electorate.

So, really that is not a simple solution over here.

What I am trying to promote is an objective assessement of the effectiveness of fluoridation of the water supply, not in a narrow sense as a decay prevention measure, but in it's holistic effect. The pro fluoride lobby including Qld gov boasts some 300m people in the world use fluoridation. Thats about 2\3 of America and Australia... pretty much it. They love to boast the endorsement of peer groups and particularly the WHO.

For example the Qld gov site states unaquivically that fluoride is safe and is supported by the WHO. It doesn't quote the unfavourable... but with qualifications bit.

The American Cancer Society noted:

The precise quidelines from WHO:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Deception: use + abuse of information by governments + terrorists
Replies
2
Views
5K
reichstag911
R
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
R
New York Times GOLD article
Replies
3
Views
9K
Mofra
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...