 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
139,878 registered members
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
ADVERTISEMENT | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dentists criticise fluoridation findings
[Posted: Mon 14/07/2003]
By Deborah Condon
A group of Irish dentists who oppose fluoridation have called for an investigation into why a report from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI), which contained concerns about allowing infants to drink fluoridated tap water, was 'buried'.
Speaking to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health, Dr Don MacAuley, chairman of Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation (IDOF), said that the FSAI report would have signalled an end to fluoridation.
Dr MacAuley was presenting evidence of irregularities relating to the Forum on Fluoridation, which was set up in May 2000 by Health Minister, Micheal Martin, to examine the contentious issue of water fluoridation.
The forum's final report was published last September. It recommended that the fluoridation of piped water supplies should continue as a 'public health measure'. However it also recommended that levels of fluoride should be reduced, 'in light of both international and Irish research which shows that there is an increasing occurrence of dental fluorosis'.
Supporters of fluoridation insist that the practise is safe and that the dental health of residents of fluoridated communities is considerably better than that of residents living in non-fluoridated communities.
However opponents of fluoridation are concerned about 'mass medication', fluorosis (damage to the enamel of the teeth), dental cavities and other health risks they claim are linked to the practise.
Speaking at the Joint Committee, Dr MacAuley said that the FSAI submitted a risk assessment report to the forum in 2001 which concluded that bottle-feeding infants should not use tap water, as they could be overdosing on fluoride. However this report was not referred to in the forum's final report.
Dr MacAuley also expressed concern that the majority of members of the forum 'have a pro-fluoridation bias' and that the final report ignored the fact that levels of tooth decay remain low in many parts of Europe where fluoridation is not practised.
Following the meeting, the Green Party called for a further hearing on fluoridation to clarify why the FSAI report was not included in the forum's final report. Meanwhile Fine Gael said that the notion of a mandatory mass medication scheme is 'repellent and becomes frightening when one considers the dosage ingested by an individual is impossible to measure'.
Jane(janejones) Posted:
16/07/2003 13:16 |
| It is a disgrace that Irish and UK Ministers persist in their determination to protect and defend the indefensible. The people should pick up their pens and make their feelings known in every local and national paper in these two countries. Let editors be in no doubt of the strength of feelings. And let us all remember, in the words of Billy Bragg, that there should be NO POWER WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY. All elected representatives who do not uphold the rights of citizens to refuse mass medication should be shown the door at the next available opportunity. THAT should focus a few minds. Whose teeth ARE they, anyway? Jane Jones, National Pure Water Association ("No Power Without Accountability"). |
|
Katie(KatieMary) Posted:
16/07/2003 20:09 |
| I grew up in the United States, and at the age of about 13 (I am now 56), my teeth were painted with fluoride on two occasions as part of the government's program to combat tooth decay. This was before fluoridation of the water. My sister had her teeth done too. We have had no problems as a result. Perhaps the situation could be resolved by either removing the fluoride from the water or removing it from the toothpaste. There's no need for both. It's difficult to find a non-fluoridated toothpaste that's acceptable in taste. Overdosage could possibly result from fluoride in both toothpaste and water. |
|
nyscof Posted:
16/07/2003 22:08 |
|
Children Need Dentists - NOT Fluoridation, Study Shows Despite living without fluoridated water, rural children's cavity rates equal those of urban children, who are more likely to drink fluoridated water, according to a large U.S. government study of over 24,000 U.S. children, ages 2- to 17-year-old.(1) *** Parents should use ready-to-feed formulas or mix non-fluoridated bottled water into formula concentrate “Risk factors for Dental Fluorosis: A review of the recent literature,” Pediatric Dentistry, 4/22/2000, by Dr. Ana K. Mascarenhas *** "Infants pastthe age of 12 months should not consume formula made with fluoridated water." Canadian Dental Hygienists Association http://www.cdha.ca/content/newsroom/pdf/ProbeFluoride.pdf New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof |
|
Anita(anitaknight) Posted:
17/07/2003 05:17 |
| No competent doctor would prescribe an unlimited dose of any medicine, which is what fluoridation would be since there are no labels on processed beverages or foods. Again we repeat that it is good nutrition and good dental hygiene that produces good teeth and bones. |
|
Paul(pedson) Posted:
17/07/2003 12:51 |
| I placed a Motion before Kilrush Town Council calling on the government to desist in the mass medication of the public with a toxic substance. The motion was deferred to allow the Mid-Western Health Board and the Dept. of Health to justify the policy. Neither had the courtesy (or should that be courage) to reply. |
|
Jane(janejones) Posted:
17/07/2003 23:42 |
| Paul - persist! Write letters to your local papers - talk to neighbours and get them to form a group. Tell those councillors that they have a DUTY to protect the rights of all of their constituents. (All elected reps have that duty). By medicating you in this way, they are violating your human rights. If they won't protect them, challenge them at the next opportunity - stand for Council. - Jane |
|
Jane(janejones) Posted:
18/07/2003 10:47 |
| Take a look at this, which we circulated to our international eList last night. GOOD NEWS - VICTORY AT BRIGHTON. News just in - the Motion to Brighton Council, presented by the Greens, was passed by about 75% of the Councillors present. Gary Kemp, Pete and friends worked hard prior to the event, for which they deserve our sincere thanks. Gary wrote tonight: "Very strong feelings about it on both sides and the public gallery - we were threatened with removal three times!!!" Here is the Notice of Motion - the local paper will do a story, which we will circulate to the eList. - J Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies - Notice of Motion - Council July 17, 2003 Council notes that the government plans to introduce an amendment to the Water Industry Act 1991, which will give indemnity against legal action to water companies adding fluoride to their supplies. This plan is a precursor of aims to extend fluoridation of the public water supply throughout the United Kingdom. This Council is concerned that: · Mass medication without consent is unethical and contrary to a European Convention on Human Rights and Medicine. · Evidence challenges the belief that fluoride reduces tooth decay. Readily available fluoride products, such as fluoride toothpaste are available for those who may wish to use them. · Fluoride added to drinking water is hexafluorosilicic acid - a hazardous toxic waste by-product of the phosphate fertiliser industry derived from the pollution scrubber liquor from its factory chimneys. · Considerable scientific evidence has been gathered that fluoride, more toxic than lead and only slightly less so than arsenic, can be harmful to health even in small quantities and accumulates within the body increasing the likelihood of cancer and increasing the rate of tumour growth. Additionally fluoride has been linked to other medical conditions including thyroid complaints, irritable bowel syndrome and dental fluorosis. · Calcium levels in the body decrease as fluoride levels rise: bone density rises and the internal structure of the bone changes making them brittle. Studies show an increased incidence of hip fractures in elderly people living in fluoridated areas. The vast majority of countries do not fluoridate their water supplies, a number that once did have now abandoned the practice, and more are reviewing their own policy on the matter. Bearing in mind this Council has a duty to protect the health and human rights of Brighton & Hove residents it believes the appropriate policy for water supplies and dental health would contain: · A properly resourced strategy for reducing tooth decay, including education of children and adults about dental hygiene, the need for a healthy diet, and the effects of excessive consumption of sugar. · A ban on the fluoridation of drinking water. · A health warning on all sources of fluoride intended for human consumption. John Butterfill, MP for Bournemouth West, has submitted an Early Day Motion (EDM 1258) to Parliament stating: "That this House considers that the only chemicals which should be added to public water are "those which are essential for its purification for public consumption; believes that the addition of "medicines to public water supplies is a breach of fundamental human rights; and rejects any "proposals to amend legislation to permit the addition of fluoride to public water supplies." This Council agrees wholeheartedly with these sentiments and wishes to publicly state its opposition to an unnecessary and unethical imposition of mass fluoridation, and therefore resolves: · To call upon our local MPs to sign and support Early Day Motion 1258. · To oppose moves to fluoridate our local water supply. · To require the Chief Executive to write to our partners in local health care, Southern Water and the relevant ministers seeking their support for this Council's firm opposition to fluoridation. Proposed by Councillor George Richard Mallender Seconded by Councillor Bill Randall -end- |
|
Ken(kenher) Posted:
07/01/2004 23:02 |
| Fluoride strengthens enamel period. Decay takes far longer to reach the inner dentine layer if the enamel has been strengthened by fluoride. Therefore teeth have a greater chance of surviving the ravages of a decay-causing diet if they have been strengthened. There is probably a slightly greater risk of fluorosis where large amounts of toothpaste containing fluoride are used and swallowed, along with fluoridated water. I would be strongly in favour of fluoride as a decay preventing agent, but I have no argument against mass medication, ie fluoride in the water. By all means remove it from the water, but leave it readily accessible to those who want it. It works, full stop. Also, I do not know of any randomized, controlled trials, subjected to peer review, which can substantiate the opinion that fluoride in ingestible amounts causes any medical complications/conditions. |
|
Jane(janejones) Posted:
08/01/2004 13:49 |
| The National Pure Water Association and others have asked the UK Government and even the World Health Organisation to provide even ONE randomised control trial, subjected to peer review which can substantiate the opinion that fluorosilicate chemicals used in water fluoridation schemes (contaminated with Arsenic, Lead, Beryllium, Cadmium, Vanadium, Mercury, Silica and Radionuclides) reduce tooth decay. More to the point, however, is the little matter of Ethics. The medical and dental establishments have their own codes of Ethics to which they must subscribe. These specifically state that individual consent to treatment or medication must be obtained. When the dental profession (in the main) advocates fluoridation, how do they get around the little problem of obtaining individual consent? Or are Ethics expendable when a solution to tooth decay is sought? There is no mystique about the causes of tooth decay - poor nutrition (sugar-laden and junk foods are the prominent culprits) and poor oral hygiene. Perhaps an easier way to tackle the issue is to focus elsewhere, on very serious, lifethreatening diseases which are in the news right now: childhood obesity and childhood diabetes. Surely the medical profession can recognise that tackling these two rapidly growing conditions will have a great spin-off - lower tooth decay! A little imagination is required from our health professionals - not the abandonment of ethical standards, which result in violations of individual human rights. The public drinking water supply must not be used as a vehicle for conveying chemicals which are intended to create biological change in people. Treatments and medications are matters which must remain entirely between individuals and their personal health advisers. And individuals need not accept the professional's advice. In the matter of non-contagious conditions, forced medication or treatment is increasingly viewed by many as health fascism. A very happy New Year to all. Jane Jones, Campaign Director, National Pure Water Association. http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/yellow.html |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
29/06/2004 09:59 |
| Fluorine is poisonous, as is chlorine. However, neither are put in our water. What goes in are fluorides and chlorides, which any first year secondary student can tell you are entirely different substances. For example, sodium chloride, common salt, is in all our body fluids, and the oceans wouldn't be the same without it. Fluorides also occur naturally in water. The question is not whether to use fluorides in our water, but how much is a safe level, given it is already in ground water across Europe. Let's remember, that too much of anything, including the purest of water (which does not exist outside a laboratory) is bad for you, and base this very important public health debate on evidence. |
| To join the discussion, register by clicking here |
 |
About Irishhealth.com | Privacy Policy | Contact us | Why Register? | Make this your home page | Site Map |  |
| Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved. We subscribe to the principles of the Health On the Net Foundation |
