Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Whiskers, could you please clear your In Box.
J.
J.
Oh dear, MW, how mean spirited to feel the need to pick on spelling errors, possibly typos, which make no difference to the sense of what Whiskers is saying.
Is that really the behaviour of someone confident in his argument? We all have different backgrounds. Some of us were rigidly schooled in spelling and others were not. It is not the mark of the person. Shame on you.
How utterly patronising. We all acquire our 'knowledge' in different ways and from different sources. As you are so fond of telling us you are a Medical Health Professional, please note capitals according due respect to your status.
So we would expect you to be cognisant of various medical knowledge not widely accessed by the rest of us. If you were less conscious of maintaining your egocentricity, you would give Whiskers the information he has sought.
I've said all I have to say about the fluoridation of the water supply. I am opposed to it absolutely on the basis that it is mass medication when a valid alternative exists, i.e. those who want it can take supplementary fluoride.
And I don't want to become again embroiled in a squabble. I'm just disappointed that you are again doing what you do so consistently, MW, i.e. adopting some sort of moral, intellectual and educational high ground where you feel the need to put others down for their genuinely held views.
Oh dear, MW, how mean spirited to feel the need to pick on spelling errors, possibly typos, which make no difference to the sense of what Whiskers is saying.
Is that really the behaviour of someone confident in his argument? We all have different backgrounds. Some of us were rigidly schooled in spelling and others were not. It is not the mark of the person. Shame on you.
How utterly patronising. We all acquire our 'knowledge' in different ways and from different sources. As you are so fond of telling us you are a Medical Health Professional, please note capitals according due respect to your status.
So we would expect you to be cognisant of various medical knowledge not widely accessed by the rest of us. If you were less conscious of maintaining your egocentricity, you would give Whiskers the information he has sought.
I've said all I have to say about the fluoridation of the water supply. I am opposed to it absolutely on the basis that it is mass medication when a valid alternative exists, i.e. those who want it can take supplementary fluoride.
And I don't want to become again embroiled in a squabble. I'm just disappointed that you are again doing what you do so consistently, MW, i.e. adopting some sort of moral, intellectual and educational high ground where you feel the need to put others down for their genuinely held views.
You "think"... thats a long way from a 'clear public health benefit'.
Medicowallet doesn't seem to be able to find any holistic economic study into the cost and cost shifting of fluoridation. Can anyone help us out with this one?
Sometimes as a result of lobying from vested interest groups, ideoligical politicans and corrupt persuasion, just to name a few common reasons why poor, inefficient, economic and social decisions are often made by government.
I refer you back to your point of reference, Public Health.
Apart from the lack of holistic economic data to support the net total cost saving to the community of fluoridation, it goes against the notion of Public Health Intervention... ie to promote healthy behavours.
The Public Health Departments promotion of healthy behaviours for dental hygene is getting less and less.
This is what most people object to about flouridation. It's not about promoting healthy behavior, just mass medication to try to catch the few and limit the effects of their poor dental hygene rather than a bit more effort targeting them for education or treatment if necessary.
Often the best education on healthy behaviour in this issue is incorporated with the visits for treatment of existing decay.
I am finding it frustrating that people who have obviously never read anything other than the conspiracy theory tripe, do not participate in a discussion appropriately.
MW, I do accept that fluoridation of drinking water can help improve dental hygiene and reduce cardiac problems caused by bad diet.Sorry, I asked you to provide a study showing that the risks outweigh the benefits, and I said I would provide three if you did. You have a viewpoint supported by studies, I have the WHO, please read their links and evaluate the cost benefit from what they say.
Oh, I agree that diet and self-care are paramount in dental health, but at the moment, there is need for fluoridation.
Trying to change people's health behaviours is tough work, and in the interim, in this occasion, fluoridation provides a cost effective solution to a problem.
2. I don't have to reference to cardiac benefits of good dental health, that is common knowledge so I shall not waste my time.
HHS Recommends Lower Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water
January 10, 2011 ”” Two federal agencies have announced that they are taking new measures to reduce levels of fluoride in drinking water because Americans increasingly encounter the mineral from other sources, such as fluoridated toothpaste.
The overriding goal of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to reverse a slow rise in fluorosis, which leads to cracks in the enamel and discoloration of the teeth. In extreme cases, it also may adversely affect bone, increasing fracture risk...
HHS proposes to lower its recommended optimal level for community water fluoridation from a range of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L to the single figure at the lower end ”” 0.7 mg/L.
http://natmednews.posterous.com/hhs-recommends-lower-fluoride-levels-in-drink
The NRC (2006) examination of the MCL/MCLG for fluoride was an outgrowth of the first six year review of the 1986 fluoride drinking water regulation as mandated by the 1996 SDWA and recognition by EPA of the number of scientific studies on the bone and dental effects of fluoride that were published after the regulation (U.S. EPA, 2003). The NRC published the report of their effort in 2006 as: Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. The NRC committee concluded that EPA’s current MCLG of 4 mg/L for fluoride should be lowered to reduce the risk of severe enamel fluorosis and minimize the risk for bone fractures and skeletal fluorosis in adults. It charged the OW with conducting a dose-response assessment for the critical noncancer effects of fluoride on teeth and bone (U.S. EPA, 2010a) and the exposure and relative source assessment presented in this report. Through this effort, EPA has concluded that:
● Some young children are being exposed to fluoride up to about age 7 at levels that
increase the risk for severe dental fluorosis.
● The contribution of residential tap water to total ingested fluoride is lower that it was in the past.
● Use of fluoridated water for commercial beverage production has likely resulted in
increased dietary fluoride in purchased beverages, adding to the risk for over-exposure.
● The increase of fluoride in solid foods because of fluoridated commercial process water
is more variable than that for beverages.
● Incidental toothpaste ingestion is an important source of fluoride exposure in children up to about 4 years of age. However, use of fluoridated toothpaste is not recommended for children under age 2 according to FDA guidance and package labeling suggesting the
need for greater parental awareness of the FDA (2009) recommendations.
● Ambient air, soils, and sulfuryl fluoride residues in foods are minor contributions to total fluoride exposure.
Based on the data collected and evaluated by the OW, it is likely that most children, even those that live in fluoridated communities, can be over-exposed to fluoride at least occasionally.http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/Fluoridereport.pdf
Sorry, I asked you to provide a study showing that the risks outweigh the benefits, and I said I would provide three if you did. You have a viewpoint supported by studies, I have the WHO, please read their links and evaluate the cost benefit from what they say.
Trying to change people's health behaviors is tough work, and in the interim, in this occasion, fluoridation provides a cost effective solution to a problem.
One of the hallmarks of a good conspiracy theorist is that he never gives up. I notice that you were still beavering away at 1.37 this morning desperately seeking ammunition.
You are conforming to most of the characteristics of conspiracy theorists.
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
Ah, here we go, the brainless default argument, "it must be a conspiracy". Gees, asbestos, lead and arsenic are perfectly safe, it was those conspiracy theorists too. Your immaturity is shining thru on this thread Cal.
1. I am not going to provide the three studies that I have until you provide the one that you should have to make your claims (btw it is not hard to find cost-benefit studies supporting fluoridation, try google scholar)
2. Cardiac benefits alone are not the only benefits of fluoridation, and the studies I have do not differentiate the costs to the extent of valvular disease etc, and therefore must be taken in their entirity. ie a positive cost-benefit study takes this, and other appropriate factors into account (something you believe is not happening, and I have called for you to supply evidence of this)
3. I am glad we agree on some of the causes of tooth decay, and I refer you to my statement of the same, and I hope you acknowledge that even though people like you and I may not benefit from fluoridation, and are proactive enough to take all appropriate measures to control our own health, some people are not. These people benefit from public health initiatives. Once the balance moves out of benefit outweighs cost, I would expect fluoridation to cease.
4. Fluoridation is done at non-toxic levels.
5. I think conspiracy theorists overstate the detrimental effects of fluorosis versus the benefits of fluoridation on more serious health conditions such as cardiac health.
I know you must find it frustrating, medicowallet, but you know that logic, common sense or facts count for nothing with conspiracy theorists. One characteristic they possess is the inability to withdraw or admit they are wrong
Read this and you will see what you are up against;
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
I can only draw the conclusion he must be a conspiracy theorist!
I have no intention of joining a debate that's going nowhere. I merely commented on your statement about forcing something "on everyone for their own good".
If I had known it was going to antagonise you and OWG I wouldn't have said it..:fan
But you do continue to join the debate, despite...
Since your absolutely contradict everything you started off declaring, how can we take anything you say seriously?
So, since you are not contributing in any constructive way to the 'debate', it would be nice if you could demonstrate that you mean what you said.
please......
Evidence please
Why should we have to?
Why is it that a lot of people who have never drunk fluoridated water have perfect teeth?
No, the cost is in putting the stuff IN the water!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?