The fluoridation fraud is facing a strong rebellion in Qld

Julia said:

So what is your point? You have the choice of making your own or buying organic, many varieties of which are freely available.
It's entirely different from mass medication of tap water.

Click to expand...

Ah, at last you have cottoned on. It's all about choice. You also have the choice of drinking bottled water (many varieties are freely available) or rainwater along with your organic bread, and you will be safe from those dangerous halogens. Make sure, of course, that you don't put any chlorine or bromine in your pool.

The capacity to freely drink from the public water supply should be fundamental without concerns about poisons being added to it. It should not be necessary to separately buy bottled water when our rates and taxes pay for tap water.

I'm well aware of your propensity to extend arguments for the sake of so doing.
Consider me out of this one as far as you are concerned.

Whiskers resurrects this every now and then.

I am always surprised that those most opinionated have no understanding of the most basic concepts of public health interventions. I mean really basic public health concepts... really basic.

Fluoridation is only used because there is good evidence for it, and no good evidence against it.

There is logic in providing interventions to all people, even though some do not benefit. There are many examples of this kind of thing in the real world, be those in other forms of insurance, or interventions that are chosen for us by those we entrust rightfully to do the right thing for the community. Only our selfishness leads us to question interventions which have a almost zero effect on ourselves, but might benefit others greatly, but that is the way of people it seems. It is even worse when we do not understand that there is actually a need for or a benefit of such an intervention.

If the evidence did not stack up, the loonies would be able to prove the so-called conspiracy.

It is really frustrating posting in this area.

I think I might follow the lead of the wise gg and sign out

MW

Julia said:

I'm well aware of your propensity to extend arguments for the sake of so doing.

Click to expand...

That's a laugh, considering that you gratuitously contest everything I say, just for the sake of argument.

Consider me out of this one as far as you are concerned.

Click to expand...

Promise?

I'll follow Medicowallets's advice;

I think I might follow the lead of the wise gg and sign out

Click to expand...

and leave this thread to the crazy conspiracy theorists.

Medicowallet, the science aside for the moment, I refer you back to the cost-benefit arguement from post 19 (I think).

I'm glad you mentioned the cost benifit MW. The Bundaberg Regional Council has published estimates that only .8% of the reticulated water supply is used for drinking. The south Burnett councils which include Blackbutt to Murgon and Kingaroy say most of the houses have tank water for drinking and as such they are opting out of fluoridation like Bundaberg on a cost basis.

A Local Dentist Dr Ingham commented in the Bundaberg News Mail that "the incidence of decay in children's teeth in southern states seemed to be increasing." contrary to the pro-fluoridation campaign claims.

Dr Ingham says "It is speculated this could be associated with many children and adults drinking bottled water instead of fluoridated tap water."

Therein lays the achilles heel of the cost benifit argument for fluoridation. If people don't drink the water it's a total waste of money with no prospect of any claimed health benifit.

Click to expand...

I've asked you previously in the 'fluoride' thread for the research that substantiates the cost benefit arguement and no one has provided any. You keep saying the reseach says there is a cost benifit, but I've researched long and hard and typically find one researcher quotes another or previous research to the effect of cost-benefit ... BUT the 'Chinese Whispers' just keeps going without leading to any real economic assement.

The Bundaberg and lower Burnett councils have considered the amount of their water supply going to drinking water as insignificant in their water network and the number of households actually using tank water for drinking as significant. Both consider the ongoing operating costs as prohibitive, ie they are not reimbursed enough (from the health budget) in the long run, and ineffective because of the tiny amount of water consumed for drinking.

It's only fair the councils be properly reimbursed from the health budget to provide this so called important health iniative, isn't it?

MW, please provide the research that shows the cost benefit of fluoridation.

Whiskers said:

MW, please provide the research that shows the cost benefit of fluoridation.

Click to expand...

I'm going to stipulate that from my perspective, this is a fair question, and as medicoWallet has stated. I would be surprised if the literature i.e. peer reviewed, case studies, cost benefit analsysi, etc. , is not available somewhere.

That said and accepted, is there any peer reviewed literature or studies by the relevant scientific community about the dangers of either fluoridation or the contaminated industrial grade fluoride?

I'm happy to start looking into this as an individual and openly acknowledge that it is something I have simply assumed. Is your objection likewise based on an equivalent assumption or has your opinion been informed by peer reviewed scientific literature from the relevant scientific community?

Whiskers said:

I've asked you previously in the 'fluoride' thread for the research that substantiates the cost benefit arguement and no one has provided any. You keep saying the reseach says there is a cost benifit, but I've researched long and hard and typically find one researcher quotes another or previous research to the effect of cost-benefit ... BUT the 'Chinese Whispers' just keeps going without leading to any real economic assement.

Click to expand...

As a starting point for myself, would you be able to refer me to these papers or reports?

Thanks

Some Dude said:

As a starting point for myself, would you be able to refer me to these papers or reports?

Thanks

Click to expand...

I'll get to the cost-benefit reports such as they are shortly. There is an introduction to impurities allowed in fluoridation back at post #7.

I will eloberate further when I have more time... but to answer you query about the science of fluoridation very succinctly, compare the facts as presented on the Qld health http://www.health.qld.gov.au/fluoride/facts_myths.asp and ADA http://www.ada.org.au/OralHealth/FLN/flfaqs.aspx#FLcosteff sites about fluoridation over exposure to this http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf from the WHO... extracts below.

See if you think anyone is unethically playing down the adverse affects and the issue of uncontrollable variables of fluoride intake to dangerous levels?

2.2.5 Total fluoride exposure

Based on the previous discussion, it follows that total daily fluoride exposure can
vary markedly from one region to another. However, from several studies, a
rough estimate of total daily fluoride exposure in a temperate climate would be
approximately 0.6 mg per adult per day in an area in which no fluoride is added to
the drinking-water and 2mg per adult per day in a fluoridated area (WHO, 1984).
In many countries this can be potentially increased for children from the use of
fluoridated dental products but there will be significant variation in individual
exposure. In hot climates the much higher consumption of water will also
increase the intake and this is frequently highly significant. In addition, fluoride
exposure in many areas is considerably higher as a consequence of a range of
practices, including the consumption of brick tea and the cooking and drying of
food with high fluoride coal. A range of estimated fluoride intakes as a consequence
of exposure to a number of different sources is given in Tables 2.3 and 2.4.

3.3.1 Effects on teeth

The beneficial and the detrimental effects of fluoride naturally present in water
were well established by the early 1940s. High levels of fluoride present in
concentrations up to 10 mg l–1 were associated with dental fluorosis (yellowish
or brownish striations or mottling of the enamel) while low levels of fluoride,
less than 0.1 mg l–1, were associated with high levels of dental decay (Edmunds
and Smedley, 1996), although poor nutritional status is also an important
contributory factor.

Concentrations in drinking-water of about 1 mg l–1 are associated with a
lower incidence of dental caries, particularly in children, whereas excess intake
of fluoride can result in dental fluorosis. In severe cases this can result in erosion
of enamel. The margin between the beneficial effects of fluoride and the occurrence
of dental fluorosis is small and public health programmes seek to retain a
suitable balance between the two (IPCS, 2002).

A couple of links that refer to the cost benefit but when you look closely, neither of those links show the raw data on which their calculations are based and appear not to be holistic economic effects on the community.

The ADA one quotes other research as "expecting" savings, but without any raw data it's likely just savings to the state health budget. It doesn't address the shifting of full costs for maintaining the system to local government or the private sector for increased dental fluorosis.

The CDC one refers to "local cost savings" but acknowledges only for "all but very small communities" which most of Qld is.

This is what I mean by a 'Chinese Whispers' type of reference, where one refers to another and so on and the context of the original probably getting biased or totally distorted by the time it gets to the end of the wisper. Please, someone show me some original raw data on the alleged cost benefit.

http://www.ada.org.au/OralHealth/FLN...aspx#FLcosteff

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm

Also can someone get a copy of the IMPACT ANALYSIS OF WATER FLUORIDATION. December, 2002. Prepared for Queensland Health by Jaguar Consulting Pty Ltd.

It is referred to by Qld health as their source of supposed cost benefits, but they don't give a link to a copy and I'm damned if I can find one.

medicowallet said:

Whiskers resurrects this every now and then.

Click to expand...

I imagine he is raising it at present because of the recent decision of his local Council to cease adding fluoride to the water supply. This makes it topical and of at least some local interest.

I am always surprised that those most opinionated have no understanding of the most basic concepts of public health interventions. I mean really basic public health concepts... really basic.

Fluoridation is only used because there is good evidence for it, and no good evidence against it.

Click to expand...

Perhaps consider that some of us do not dispute that fluoride helps to prevent dental caries, but are against the mass medication of a population, when the alternative exists of those wishing to use fluoride being able to do so as individuals. thus not infringing on the rights of those who prefer, for whatever reason, not to consume it.

Julia said:

I imagine he is raising it at present because of the recent decision of his local Council to cease adding fluoride to the water supply. This makes it topical and of at least some local interest.


Perhaps consider that some of us do not dispute that fluoride helps to prevent dental caries, but are against the mass medication of a population, when the alternative exists of those wishing to use fluoride being able to do so as individuals. thus not infringing on the rights of those who prefer, for whatever reason, not to consume it.

Click to expand...

Should vaccination also be a personal choice Julia?

medicowallet said:

Whiskers resurrects this every now and then.

Click to expand...

I'm baaack!


Gees so many councils have now turned off fluoridation.

Bundaberg decided 9 to 1 not to fluoridate. I think that's about 10 councils now including Cairns and the Fraser Coast this year.

Pressure is mounting on Brisbane and Gold Coast... despite their mayors support for fluoridation, they will fall eventually.

Three cheers for keeping water as pure as possible.

Whiskers said:

I would start by differentiating this thread "Fluoridation" from the previous "Fluoride" thread, in the sense that I accept there may be some benefit in fluoride products like tooth paste for some people if they choose to use them, but having our health bureaucrats demand we put filthy contaminated fluoride by-products in our drinking water is quite another.

From what I'm hearing at least two councils in the Burnett region have decided to turn off or not connect to fluoridation.

Bundaberg has dug it's heels in and told the Qld chief health officer Dr Jeanette Young (who by the way is demanding that we fluoridate our water) to knick off, you are not going to tell us what to do with our water. Apparently only two of the 10 councilers are in favor of fluoridation, but will not support it because of the ongoing costs to the local council.

The Mayor has arranged a public debate for Jan 30, but so far Dr Young and the pro-fluoride lobby are refusing to show up, rather they organised a seperate pro-fluoridation meeting a week or so ago, where they could have their say without any 'credible' counter information being discussed. They are on record as saying the science is black and white and the noisy minority who dissagree are seriously miss-informed... and that's just the tame end of the abuse critics have got from Qld health and the pro-fluoridation lobby.

I see a similar story developing on the Gold Coast where the push to get rid of fluoridation since the LNP won office and gave them the option to opt out of the filthy excuse for healthier teeth.

C'mon people, it's time to have a closer look at the inaccurate and sometimes plain untruthful 'advertising' the pro-fluoridation lobby are peddling.

Click to expand...

There isn't any 'credible' counter information against fluoridation. Information gathered by hours of "Google Research" by obsessed opponents of anti-fluoridation site run by the other untrained obsessed people doesn't count as "credible information."

I've no objection to stopping fluoridation because of the cost and because fluoridation alternative are available that can by pass the water supply but to suggest that the anti-fluoridation group have credible information is the same as giving credence to the anti-vaccination nutters.

Julia said:

Perhaps consider that some of us do not dispute that fluoride helps to prevent dental caries, but are against the mass medication of a population, when the alternative exists of those wishing to use fluoride being able to do so as individuals. thus not infringing on the rights of those who prefer, for whatever reason, not to consume it.

Click to expand...

I for one will not relegate those less fortunate than myself to a lifetime of caries and the health ramifications of this, purely because I believe some crazy blog site..

There are a lot of additives to products. Take chlorine in water for example. Chlorine is a poison, highly toxic.

Perhaps we should stop chlorine being added to water? Perhaps folate supplementation and iodine supplementation... iodine is very dangerous as well.

Oxygen is toxic to the lungs, perhaps we should remove it from public places.

Perhaps we should remove carbon from our bodies, as apparently it causes warming

and we all know we cannot survive underwater so perhaps we should remove the water in out lungs.

..

Just because some people do not want a small amount of fluoride in their water, they are choosing to not allow the people who benefit from fluoridation, or those who choose to have fluoride in the water to benefit, and hence, it should be done on public health grounds, and not on political grounds or sensationalist grounds.

MW

It's about choice, MW
If you want to have fluoride, you are entirely free to dose yourself.
Fluoride in drinking water removes choice from those who do not want it.
Nothing complex about that.

Julia said:

It's about choice, MW
If you want to have fluoride, you are entirely free to dose yourself.
Fluoride in drinking water removes choice from those who do not want it.
Nothing complex about that.

Click to expand...

No, you are clearly wrong about this in many areas. People are not afforded a choice in this.

Fluoridation helps and works. It is a public health initiative to help those who cannot afford, or cannot co-ordinate their own treatment.

A bit like chlorine in water, a bit like iodine in salt, a bit like vaccination programs.

These initiatives should NOT be held to ransom by a very small minority of people who have no idea. If these people truly believe in a negative outcome either prove it, or they should take initiative and shock horror, avoid these particularly deadly poisons.

I am passionate about certain issues akin to this, as unfortunately the lay person has NFI, but due to well thought out campaigns by loonies, they are influenced into believing there is a problem..... autism and vaccination anyone?


MW

We disagree, MW. That's fine with me.

Julia said:

We disagree, MW. That's fine with me.

Click to expand...

And with respect, ditto.

I do however believe that with improved education, incomes etc the cost-benefit of fluoridation is wavering, and it is prudent to remove it when it is not viable..

I hope that this is what is happening in QLD, and not a tree-huggerish approach to public health... but of course, as we all know, vote buying can lead to moronic policy.

medicowallet said:

And with respect, ditto.

I do however believe that with improved education, incomes etc the cost-benefit of fluoridation is wavering, and it is prudent to remove it when it is not viable..

I hope that this is what is happening in QLD, and not a tree-huggerish approach to public health... but of course, as we all know, vote buying can lead to moronic policy.

Click to expand...

Hardly call it vote buying when the coalition voted in favor of fluoridation with the Bligh Government, albeit under some duress from it's then leadership.

What has happened is ground roots anger has caused many Nat politicians to reconsider the evidence, the cost effectivenes and the fundamental right of choice, which led to giving local councils the right to decide... and decide they are, not to fluoridate.

I will have more to say on this point later as promised earlier in the thread, but often less is more... ie less chemicals and drugs with our food makes our body work naturally, healthier and easier than the effort of processing complex chemicals, additives and toxins.

Whiskers said:

Hardly call it vote buying when the coalition voted in favor of fluoridation with the Bligh Government, albeit under some duress from it's then leadership.

What has happened is ground roots anger has caused many Nat politicians to reconsider the evidence, the cost effectivenes and the fundamental right of choice, which led to giving local councils the right to decide... and decide they are, not to fluoridate.

I will have more to say on this point later as promised earlier in the thread, but often less is more... ie less chemicals and drugs with our food makes our body work naturally, healthier and easier than the effort of processing complex chemicals, additives and toxins.

Click to expand...

You answered your own concern.... state politics is different to local politics.

Your last paragraph is just crazy, but as I said before, IF the cost benefit changes, sure review, but until then, let us keep safely providing fluoridation, and also chlorination and other treatments to ensure our water is of the best quality, and offers the greatest health benefits to the community...

and, we'll leave the crazy mumbo jumbo to the crazies..

MW