Whiter than white
I bring this story to your attention merely so that you may consider it. It comes from Saturday's Times:
Andy Burnham, the new Health Secretary, yesterday urged health service managers to press ahead with the controversial fluoridation of water supplies. Speaking at the NHS Confederation annual conference, Mr Burnham, an enthusiast for fluoridation, said: "I feel we've been too timid at times on the public health agenda. So let's press ahead with water fluoridation, given the clear evidence that it can improve children's dental health."
posted by Andrew Collins @ 8:19 AM
100 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
100 Comments:
Oh dear, oh dear.
But fluoride anyway - as someone who drinks pints of corporation pop every day - I'd rather not have it anyway. There may be some kooky websites and cranks who think it's going to rot my brain - but maybe it is - why take a chance? These urchin kids can always have wooden teeth fitted like the the olden days. George Washington had wooden teeth and he did alright for himself...
Andrew, I don't really understand the point of this inasmuch as you say
...merely so that you may consider it...
and then you say at the end
Good old politics .
As opposed to bad new politics?
I don't mind considering something for debate (as that is your obvious intention I think) but what are we debating here?
That fluouridation is good/bad/ugly or that some politician who said one thing at one time says something different later?
If the former why bother with what the politician said?
If the latter what has fluoridation got to do with it?
What were we supposed to be considering here or is this what is known in the online trail as 'trolling'?
Adam you worry too much. You are considering it already. Rather than get up on my soapbox and start ranting, I thought in this instance I'd just quote the story I read and see what thoughts other people had. Although it seems pretty clear from the piece that Andy Burnham worked for an organisation that promotes fluoridation, the landed the job of health secretary and, within about a day of getting the gig, starting promoting fluoridation. What does that say to you?
What does "trolling" have to do with anything?
Andrew, I wasn't worrying too much as it were but I read a lot of blog and comment forums and I suppose I have been conditioned to stop reading once I realise that an article is just about getting a 'reaction' and doesnt contribute anything constructive.
A bit like the 'have your say' on the BBC site and the way a lot of the questions are phrased which is akin to lighting a touchpaper and standing back.
by Trolling (and you are not normally someone I see as a Troll which is why I bothered to comment) I meant were you just putting up some emotive statement just to get a reaction and hits on your blog.
Rather cynical I know, but out of character for you.
Adam, I can promise you, with my hand on my heart, I don't give a fuck about getting hits on my blog. If I wanted hits on my blog, I wouldn't have stopped writing about The Apprentice. I do my blog because I enjoy doing it. (Also, reprinting an article about Andy Burnham would be a pretty useless way of increasing hits to your blog, I would have thought! If anything, I'd expect less hits on my blog.)
There was fluoride in the water where I grew up. didn't seem to do my any harm, but stopped me getting any fillings until I was 38. Dentists could tell I had grown up in Leicestershire at crucial time of tooth development.
Seems to work
That's all I have to say.
You know me - I'd rather have the freedom to choose whether or not I want to eat fluoride, or Hydrofluosilic acid, which is what they put in the water.
Hydrofluosilic acid is not naturally occurring, but is a waste product of the industrial manufacture of aluminium, zinc, uranium, aerosols, insecticides, fertilizers, plastics, lubricants and pharmaceuticals. Yum!
It's actually listed as a Part II poison under the Poisons Act 1972. Double yum!
As well as water fluoridation, it's also used as a wood preservative, for the sterilization of equipment, electroplating, glass etching, cement hardening, rust removal, and lead refining.
Imagine if you were a company that produced fertilizer, say, and you had barrels of the stuff which you had to pay to reprocess. And then Andy Burnham turns up and says, "Hey! We'll buy it off you!"
Still, who wants rusty teeth?
Ooh look, lots more hits on my blog!
Oh sweet joy! The confused debate over "chemicals" in food stuffs goes on!
Let's say ”No” to fluoride in water? But “Yes” to fluoride in toothpaste. Let's put folic acid in bread, so we reduce birth defects and at the same time increase chances of stomach cancer in the elderly. That is a fair swap don't you think? Or go the whole hog as Stella McCartney recently was quoted as saying: “I don't eat any food made from chemicals.” So what does she eat???
This constant deification of science as either god or devil is becoming so exhausting, simplistic and tiresome.
Pass the oatmilk I want to drown my sorrows...
Hooray! It worked!
See - I should have just left it as it was. Now I've gone and sounded like am anti-science, which I'm not! I'm actually just anti having something put in my water than I didn't ask for!
(By the way, Stephen, one can choose whether or not to use toothpaste with fluoride in it, but should you wish not to have drinking water with it in, you'd have to pay about £250 to get a filter fitted. Doesn't seem very fair.)
I don't want flouride in my water. At no point did I say anything like that.
I just wanted to moan about the 'this is good for you' - 'this is bad for you' pointless see-saw debate. You are right everyone does have a choice about their toothpaste. But you do have to look pretty hard to find the fluoride free toothpastes. In a quick google search Sensodyne is the only major brand that offers a fluoride free toothpaste.
Boots the Chemists offer two products which are aimed at children and have what they bizarrely call 'Low Flouride' which I hope is spelling error or it might be the start of a whole new debate on wheat... but none of their toothpaste is Fluoride Free toothpaste. Same with Superdrug, neither of them sell fluoride free toothpaste.
Presumably the answer is not to swallow...
You've answered your own question there, Stephen, when you say "major brand." There are plenty of natural, fluoride-free toothpastes out there, just not "major brands" and not in your local supermarket. Kingfisher do a fluoride-free variety, and Green People only make fluoride-free toothpaste: it's organic, free of chemically processed chalk and sodium lauryl sulphate, and once you get used to the fact that it doesn't foam up like rabies, you'll find it's very nice and does the job. Yes, it's more expensive than "major brands" but that is often the way.
And of course, should you wish to put fluoride in your mouth, there are even more options. But putting it in the water removes that freedom of choice. Hence my beef.
But fluoride does stop tooth decay which saves a lot of money and heartache and unless you've got some evidence that it does any harm to anyone - actual evidence beyond not liking the idea - then that alone seems like a good thing to me.
There must be a big sample to look at as well because it was certainly in the water in Leicestershire when I was 5, so we should be able to see if there are any long term negative effects.
I suspect there aren't.
Seems fair to me that middle class people who are worried about it should pay £250 to opt out, given how much money it will save the NHS and how many teeth it will also save for poor kids whose parents don't give a fuck.
Be interested to see any actual evidence of negative effects if anyone has any. Or any of the research into it. Another good podcast chat ahoy I suspect! If Collings will dare to discuss it!
There is a 'side effect' of excess fluoride known as fluoridosis. An excess of fluoride can discolour your teeth (making them appear mottled) this may be ingetsed when swallowing toothpaste containing fluoride or in drinking water. It seems to effect some children more than others but doesn't affect everyone or appear to be dangerous or damaging to the teeth that are affected in the longer term.
Naomi
In 2002, the World Health Organisation prepared a report into fluorides. ("This report contains the collective views of an international group of experts and does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organization or the World Health Organization.")
It was conducted by Dr R. Liteplo and Ms R. Gomes, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada and Mr P. Howe and Mr H. Malcolm, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom. and published under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organization and the World Health Organization, and produced within the framework of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals.
The report focused on "environmental exposure to fluoride derived mostly from inorganic sources and its effects on humans, animals and other biota" (good word).
Effects on the bones of laboratory rats, such as inhibition of bone mineralization and formation, delayed fracture healing and reductions in bone volume and collagen synthesis, were observed in a variety of studies in which rats received fluoride orally for periods of 3–5 weeks.
In medium-term exposure studies, altered bone remodelling, hepatic megalocytosis, nephrosis, mineralization of the myocardium, necrosis and/or degeneration of the seminiferous tubules in the testis were observed in mice administered fluoride in drinking-water.
I quote the conclusion of the scientists who did the study: "Fluoride has both beneficial and detrimental effects on tooth enamel. The prevalence of dental caries is inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in drinking-water. The prevalence of dental fluorosis [ie. streaked, discoloured teeth] is highly associated with the concentration of fluoride, with a positive dose–response relationship."
"Evidence from several ecological studies has suggested that there may be an association between the consumption of fluoridated water and hip fractures. Other studies, however, including analytical epidemiological investigations, have not supported this finding. In some cases, a protective effect of fluoride on fracture has been reported.
"Two studies permit an evaluation of fracture risk across a range of fluoride intakes. In one study, the relative risks of all fractures and of hip fracture were elevated in groups drinking water with >1.45 mg fluoride/litre (total intake >6.5 mg/day); this difference reached statistical significance for the group drinking water containing >4.32 mg fluoride/litre (total intake 14 mg/day). In the other study, an increased incidence of fractures was observed in one age group of women exposed to fluoride in drinking-water in a non-dose-dependent manner."
You asked for it. From what I have read of the findings, fluoridation may have detrimental effects on bones. (The same report confirms no link between fluoride and cancer, which is also cited by anti-fluoridation campaigners, because people who work in industries where they are exposed to unusual levels of fluoride, such as in the aluminium smelting industry, have higher incidences lung and bladder cancer - but this could be due to "other factors".)
The WHO support fluoridation, by the way. They're mad on it in America.
The full report can be read here. You know me, I will always err on the side of caution in health matters. And I believe in freedom of choice, that's all. I can go and rub some fluoride into my teeth and gums right now after a trip to my local shop. I choose not to. That still strikes me as fair.
Anyway, unless you're under 18 or a new mum, or you're on benefits, you have to pay for your dental treatment anyway, don't you? Most of the burden is on the individual, not the taxpayer.
Im from the states. And our city water department has been adding fluoride to our water supply for some 40 years. I think its quite a good idea. I have not seen any negative side-effects nor heard of any in a city already using this process.
Yeah, I really meant anyone but Collings obviously!
Seems a rather unbalance observation even from my very brief sojourn into the internet's views on the subject.
If my teeth are anything to go by it will mean not many people have to stump up for those prohibitive costs in adulthood, which must surely be a good thing for them.
Regarding major brands of toothpaste not selling a Fluoride Free Toothpaste and large popular Chemists not selling them either; I think the point is that many of the people that would vote against fluoridation of their water supply, happily put the stuff in their mouths twice a day without a thought or care.
As soon as you ask the question "should our drinking water contain X?" most people blindly say no. Without thinking about what X is; what it does; and without considering the scientific evidence available.
Loving the debate...
You make a fair point, Stephen. But why would people object to something being put in the water, without thinking about it? Because there is something vaguely sinister about putting something in the water, that's why. There comes a point where you have to make your own health choices, and that point must come before turning on the tap to make a nice drink.
Oh, and on the subject of "major brand" toothpastes, Pat Thomas did one of her excellent Behind The Label investigations into a brand of Colgate in The Ecologist, which is online here. Worth noting Sorbitol, commonly found in normal toothpastes: "sweetener and tartar control agent, humectant. Bloating and intestinal cramping in high doses, laxative. Because of its laxative effects, the use of gel toothpastes (which can contain up to 70 per cent sorbitol) by small children should be supervised, possibly even discouraged, by parents." And our old pal Sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS): "detergent and foaming agent. SLS is a harsh cleanser often used as an engine de-greaser. It’s added to toothpaste to make it foam, but is not necessary to clean your teeth. Health effects: Irritating to the mucous membranes in the mouth; mouth ulcers, canker sores; contact eczema."
Yum!
er, perhaps they should put a very very very very very small amount of fluoride in the water and then, through the memory of water, the water would remember how to make teeth strong
Simon in Sevenoaks
Ah, the obvious homeopathy joke - I've been expecting you! What kept you? Have a seat.
Anything that reduces the number of people consulting those pseudo-science mongering fake healers - dentists - has to be a good thing in my book. Toothpaste manufacturers actually have to spell out that the white-coated actor in their ads is not a dentist, such is the general and well-founded public distrust of those charlatans. Otherwise no one would touch their asthma-inducing (in my case) shite with a bargepole with bristles.
Christ I'm confused by this issue. But I've always drunk tap water, I use minimal amounts of toothpaste (and plenty of brushing), and I haven't been to a dentist in 26 years. That's all I'm saying.
if it wasn't for obvious jokes I'd never say anything funny (makes sad face)
Simon in Sevenoaks
Just put fluoride free toothpaste into the water suply. Blue and white stripes out of the cold tap, red and white from the hot. Sorted.
Dave, I'm normally pretty good at this kind of thing but I really can't work this out. Are you joking or actually accusing dentists of being charlatans?
Just because you had flouride in the water and you have good teeth doesn't mean that it's a result of flouridation. I (think) grew up with fluoride in Holland and have pretty average teeth in terms of fillings. Funnily enough I saw a checkout girl at Sainsbury's with a bad case of dental fluorosis the other day. I'm sure that treating that costs a lot of money and almost certainly isn't on the NHS. I'm with Collins on this one, I don't like people fucking with my water supply. In Northampton I'm having to use a Brita filter to get the incredible taste of chlorine out of the drinking water. I know you have to kill germs but it's like drinking a swimming pool. I'm sure the State would have to pay for the priviledge of using fluoride, money that could be spent on dental care. They also don't inform the public terribly well, almost certainly because they know people will object. If fluoride is being put in the water supply then it should at least be advertised regularly so that people can reduce fluoride intake by using toothpaste with xylitol like I do. I just think that if you can't be sure that using a poison won't have subtle effects on cognition or general health you shouldn't use it. But then wireless internet has been found to have detrimental effects on cognitive function so economics always outweigh subtle health concerns. To be honest I'm losing hope on this kind of thing, I think the ship has sailed. Genetically modified foods are already in the food chain, everything is being fortified and modified. We just have to wait for the inevitable disaster to see if the rules will be changed, although global economic meltdown has barely affected financial regulation.
As for what it says about British politics? It's corruption. A 19th Century practice that should have been stamped out years ago. At least second jobs will soon have to be declared. I think Homeopathy is bullshit by the way...
I'm not sure that it's THAT sinister to put something in tapwater. Not flouride anyway. Dog shit or cat piss would disconcert me more.
There are so many different bloody chemicals in bloody everything that I reckon we may as well accept the strong possibility of early death now and get on with having a laugh for the time we have left. Hurrah!
I find it a bit suspect that someone has been putting the chemicals of oxygen and hydrogen into my water.
I had some chips the other day and without me asking the man put some sodium and some acetic acid on it.
It's all very sinister.
"There are so many different bloody chemicals in bloody everything that I reckon we may as well accept the strong possibility of early death now and get on with having a laugh for the time we have left."
Don't worry too much. Your life expectancy is double what it would have been 100 years ago.
There already is stuff put into tapwater to disinfect/purify it, so I don't see how it's sinister really. The US has had it for years and I don't believe they have an outbreak of smashed hips. Seems like people are just afraid of anything percieved as meddling. GM food is another one that seems to draw criticism just because it's 'messing with nature' and such. Never mind the great positive effects these advances can have eh...
Fluoridation is not on the same scale as GM, Chas.
And why will nobody address my original concern, and the one I keep reiterating: that I'd rather have the right to choose whether or not to ingest fluoride. That's all it boils down to for me. Debating the pros and cons of fluoridation, which is mass medication for political reasons and a process that benefits the fertilizer industry, is a separate debate from the one about freedom of choice.
And the cost of a home fluoride filter is also only the tip of the fluoridated iceberg; fluoridated drinking water means that someone who wishes not to drink fluoride can no longer, say, order tap water in a restaurant, or in fact do anything that involves the use of water in the outside world. Just as avoiding GM, which again ought to be a choice, is now simply impossible in America. The fight is indeed lost in many places. Let's preserve what little autonomy we have left in terms of what we put into our bodies.
Which is why putting folic acid into bread is fine if it's in certain breads, but not if it's in ALL BREAD, which suddenly starts to sound "sinister".
If I have a headache and want to take an aspirin, does that mean the man next door has to take one too? It might help my headache, and you could say that it wouldn't kill him if he had to take on too, but if he doesn't need one, who has the divine right to tell him take one? (Remember, if he doesn't take one, I can still take one, and if his not taking one poses no risk to anybody else.)
Oh, and the man in the chip shop should always ask before he puts sodium chloride and ascetic acid on your chips. That's freedom of choice, which apparently works for the private sector. Mine does.
Fact is we still have a small number of children (and adults) dying from septacaemia due to dental decay in the UK. Others have to undrgo General Anaetshesia for extractions (not without risk).Fluoride is present in many beers and teas. The amount of fluoride to be added at 1ppm is very low and in studies does not appear to have an increase in fractures in the elderly in areas of natural fluoridation or Birmingham where fluoridation has occured for many years. Lot less damaging than the current government obsession with having everybody's blood pressure so low that elderly people keel over and break their hips. I fully understand Andrews objections to having mass medication but the health worries are not founded on scientific experience. Andy Burnham is by no means my favourite politician but to try to vilify him for standing by his principles seems unfair. If a politician was vice-president of another pressure group such as War on Want, for example would you consider them corrupt if they instituted measures against sweat shop made clothing being sold in this country?
Clive in Northants
Clive, if War On Want benefited industry, I'd be concerned, actually.
@Duncan Cookson But then wireless internet has been found to have detrimental effects on cognitive function ... Any chance you could point to a source? Would be interested to read.
DJ
Word verification: Turge. Made me smile for purely juvenile reasons.
At risk of going horribly off topic, but Clive in Northants. Seriously do you think the obsession with keeeping people's blood pressure low might have something to do with the rate of cardiovascular disease and stroke in this country? And is hypotension the real cause of hip fractures in the elderly and not, say, mechanical falls? Nationally the rates for both hypertensive stroke and chronic kidney disease are far higher than the rates of fracuted NOF secondary to hypotensive falls.
I'm speaking with some knowledge here as I'm responsible for impelmenting the NHS Health Check here in Medway and the levels of hypertension are quite shocking.
Simon in Sevenoaks (but Medway right now)
Is it just me, but I didn't really see Andrew's blog as a rant about the benefits or otherwise of adding fluoride to the water supply?
I just saw it as a good example of how vested interests work in our political system.
If Andy Burnham had added to his statement that in his position as honorary vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society he had seen first hand the benefits then fair enough, but he didn't.
Andy W
Andrew, I agree that Hydrofluosific Acid sounds pretty dodgy from the description you gave above. However, I'd be much more concerned about another major component of fluoridated water, namely Dihydrogen Monoxide. This stuff is truly dangerous:
"The dangers, uses and potential threats posed by this chemical, Dihydrogen Monoxide, are widespread, and some feel, terrifying. Here is just a small taste of what Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is:
- Some call Dihydrogen Monoxide the "Invisible Killer"
- Others think dihydrogen monoxide should be Banned
- Dihydrogen Monoxide is linked to gun violence
- Dihydrogen monoxide was found at every recent school shooting
- Athletes use DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE, or DHMO, to enhance performance
- Dihydrogen Monoxide has been found in our rivers, lakes, oceans and streams
- Dihydrogen Monoxide is a major component of acid rain
- Thousands die each year after inhaling dihydrogen monoxide
- Dihydrogen Monoxide can be deadly
Speaking for myself, its not completely harmless, when I was a kid our parents were told that we should take flouride suppliments as well as that what was in toothpaste and also the drinking water at the time in our area. As a result I could probably recall at least 5% of my year having Flourosis, including myself. Not exactly a big deal, my front teeth are pretty much impervious to tooth decay but are incosistently coloured.
"And why will nobody address my original concern, and the one I keep reiterating: that I'd rather have the right to choose whether or not to ingest fluoride. That's all it boils down to for me. Debating the pros and cons of fluoridation, which is mass medication for political reasons and a process that benefits the fertilizer industry, is a separate debate from the one about freedom of choice."
It's easy to sypathise with your point of view Andrew and it's obviously a very difficult issue which has come up many times for years. My point of view is slightly different. I think it's important to note that most of us (certainly us wooly liberal types) are prepared to sacrifice some of our civil liberties for the benefit of society as a whole. The majority of us pay income tax. We don't have the "freedom of choice" to opt out, and I suspect you're quite happy about that, as am I. Taxes pay for free healthcare and education which is our society's way of giving help to those who need it most.
So personally, if it is shown that fluoridation benefits the dental health of the poorer kids in society (and doesn't do significant harm to other aspects of health), I'm happy for it to happen. Which is why, for me, this debate should indeed be about the effects of the chemical itself.
As someone else has pointed out, there are already plenty of other chemicals added to water to keep it safe. But its either that or get mouthfuls of bacteria and algae from your taps. If you wanted pure H2O (which actually doesn't taste very good) you'd need a chemistry set. It's all about the middle ground between harmful extremes.
Darren, you are clearly a very reasoned and reasoning individual. And I admire you for your stoicism. I'm actually much more extreme in my views, which is probably why we differ slightly in our view. I actually don't think fluoridation is comparable to taxation. Fluoridation is yes or no issue. Taxation comes in many forms, and of course, certain among us are able to beat the system. You can't beat the system if a population is medicated at source.
You may feel differently, but I am actually not prepared to sacrifice my civil liberties. I don't believe civil liberty is a luxury to be earned, I believe it is right of every man, woman and child in this country. I believe the money given to the fertilizer industry to pay for its waste products would be better spent on education of parents about tooth decay. My generation was among the first to be given health education at school about brushing teeth twice a day, not eating sweets in the evening before bed etc. I'm not saying we all followed the advice, but it was given to us, at school.
Childhood obesity is a much bigger problem for today's kids than tooth decay - although the two are of course connected - and a much greater burden on the NHS throughout later life - so why not put some kind of appetite depressant in the water? (Exactly: it's a horrible-sounding idea, isn't it?) Or we could put bromide in the water to stop young people getting each other pregnant?
It comes back to my original point: health has to be the responsibility of the individual, while the government's responsibility is to provide decent healthcare and health education, especially in schools.
You could force everybody, by law, to exercise for half an hour every day, at the same time, or face fine or prosecution. Who could possibly object? It might improve the general health of the nation, something I'm all for. But it would also be a totalitarian policy, something I'm completely against.
Andrew:you can choose not to have flouridation in your tap water. You can cut your house off from the mains and buy in any type of water you like. It's not like taxation there's no law that say's you have to be on the mains in some areas you could apply to have a well in your garden or collect rain water and treat it yourself.
Personally I think british tap water is marvel in that it's mostly clean, drinkable and relatively cheap something most of the world doesn't have.
On your other point a new labour minister with no moral compass is hardly news but just another depressing step down hill.
BLTP, as stated earlier, I could successfully bypass fluoridation by spending £250 on a fluoride filter (then spending whatever it costs to keep replacing the filters), but I don't see why I should have to - and the government aren't going to give me a grant to do so. And I'm not funding the bottled water industry! They'd love that! My genius idea is leave things as they are.
The only problem with that approach (total freedom of choice in all that we consume and do) is that we haven't all got the ability and/or time to research all of the academic papers and research results for every single decision we make and food/drink we consume and we are definitely in a situation at the moment where you could argue we have too much choice and we're confused by it all. Do we drink juice for Vitamin C or does it rot our teeth and make children too excitable? Ad infinitum. I can't keep up with it all. I admit. I could do with someone I trust (in theory the government and academic institutions) to manage/do this research for me and tell me what is the best thing (or the least risk) thing to do. I just haven't got the expertise or even the will to figure out whether I should be eating/drinking every single thing available to me. And if I shouldn't be consuming something - actually is it really going to cause me proper harm, and if it is, well so what, life is for living, not constantly living in fear that we have eaten the wrong type (eg GM) of pea. We don't know everything and I'm not convinced we ever will because of the sheer volume of variables, so why worry, let's leave it to the experts, we simply have to trust them sometimes - it's that or give ourselves hernias worrying about things.
But I am a person who chucks themselves out of planes fairly regularly so you probably shouldn't listen to me.
Bloody scientists and government tampering with our water, trying to make us healthy and stop us dying of dysentery. If I was them I'd just shut the whole thing down and let everyone shit in the garden and get their water out of the river.
But luckily for us they are evil and trying to get us with their disinfected water that will help us keep our teeth.
The chef at my restaurant puts sodium in my food without me asking and all sorts of ingredients. I think I should stand over him and tell him which things he should put in my food and which he shouldn't, rather than trusting that he can do his job and is probably not trying to kill me.
And rather than picking one study out of thousands that supports my view, here's an article that takes everything into account and concludes that the health benefits outweigh the spotty teeth and the unlikely possibility of brittle bones.
But a woman at the end says that she thinks it is bad and that the government didn't accept what seems to me might well have been unscientific word of mouth, so best listen to her.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/957372.stm
You make a very good argument Andrew, and nobody could accuse you of not having thought this issue through. It seems we do simply see some aspects of it differently.
"Childhood obesity is a much bigger problem for today's kids than tooth decay - although the two are of course connected - and a much greater burden on the NHS throughout later life - so why not put some kind of appetite depressant in the water? (Exactly: it's a horrible-sounding idea, isn't it?)"
Actually, in the same was as fluoride, I'd be happy about that if it could be shown that it has no significant negative effects on the non-obese. Obviously that seems unlikely, but that's why it should be judged on a case by case basis.
My point about tax was a general one. Simply saying that those reasonable people among us are prepared to fund things which benefit society as a whole, to our own personal cost. Yes there's a difference in a financial cost and a potential health cost, but again it's only a general point.
Surely being forced to pay tax is an infringement on civil liberties which you support? Just like we all know there should be consequences if we steal or murder. Being arrested is an infringement of someones civil liberties, but one that most of us judge to be acceptable. My point is just that we all draw lines somewhere, and the two of us simply draw them in different places.
You make a good case for the funds being spent elsewhere though. I'm all for education and if similar results could be achieved that way then that is of course hugely preferable. This debate has made me much less sure of a position either way. Don't you love it when someone doesn't just call you a dick for disagreeing?
I am so not getting any work done. Could someone please stop this interesting discussion now please before I get fired. Cheers.
Thank you for your link, Mr Richard Herring.
Although your link comes from 2000 and my link comes from 2002, so mine beats yours.
And, for the record, I didn't pick a study that "supports my view". It's a totally unbiased report from the WHO, who represent the world, and are pro-fluoridation and thus not exactly the first port of call for someone who's anti-fluoridation - which is precisely why I quoted from it, to counter arguments that I pick and choose my data from sympathetic sources.
I quoted their bit about bones. It did not convince the WHO to stop fluoridation. The same data gives me pause for thought. That's all.
As ever, you have the consensus on your side. As ever, you have nothing to fear from my insane views. I'm sure if Andy Burnham and the government and the fertilizer industry have their way, my water supply will one day be fluoridated. And I will have to buy a filter. And I don't expect I'll be consulted.
This is the world we live in. I had better get used to it at some point.
You make a fair point about us not knowing what's in the food we eat in restaurants. However, it's through campaigning and lobbying over the last ten years from nutters who care about health that food labelling has improved in general, and shops like M&S stopped putting hydrogenated fat in their food, which they now rightly show off about. It's often the nutters whose objections cause shifts in public perception and the way even big business operates. You can find out exactly what's in a McDonald's burger now, on their website.
Only the alcohol industry is exempt from clear labelling. And that's because the government gets money off them through tax and doesn't want to upset them.
Andrew.
With references to my cynical claim that you were looing for Hits on your Blog (which of course I know you couldn't give a damn about), I do see that no one in this now huge thread, which has as I suspected it would, turned into a gentler version of a BBC HYS article about Fluoro-ing the water rather than what I hoped it would turn into; which was a 'self interested' politcian - or words to that effect, I am paraphrasing of course. Which is potentially more serious and certainly more interesting than who puts what into our water - which will be debated on as it has already many times in the past in our two chambers at length no doubt.
You said in your reposte to my wanting to know what the heck you were trying to debate/talk about here
... it seems pretty clear from the piece that Andy Burnham worked for an organisation that promotes fluoridation, the landed the job of health secretary and, within about a day of getting the gig, starting promoting fluoridation. What does that say to you?
and no one has really bothered with that point. Oh well. So let me be the first.
It says to me that there is no such thing as a non-interested member of parliament or government or other public body. Were you trying to imply a conspiracy (I think not)? or that there was something 'rotten' somewhere or what? An abuse of power even? That is what I should have probably said first off.
I see nothing wrong with someone who has an interest in 'ABC' being put into a position where they can then bring to bear their beliefs in a more influential manner. Rightly or wrongly - and that is probably what we should be discussing as that is far more interesting I think.
Sometimes I think cases like this are framed in such a way as to make it seem suspicious or corrupted. Perhaps people who do have an interest also have a better or deeper or more technical understanding of the problem/interest at hand. Why not get these people on board?
But perhaps it is now too late to try to talk about this because since I posted yesterday, this entry has really turned into a debate about fluoridating water.
Anyway, thanks for reading.
Andrew: not sure where exactly you live but thames water don't put Flouride in their water.
sorry if this has been mentioned above.
http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/900.htm
the code word today is "ingest"!!
You're right. Fight the alcohol industry and the fast food industry who are doing harm and where the government might be complicit in some wrong doing and not scientists who are trying to help. It does affect us all if people make a fuss about stuff like this (and I don't know enough about it to be sure I am right, but know a bit more about stuff like MMR etc where interference is affecting and harming people) because most places don't have fluoride in their water because of people resisting it because they don't like the sound of it.
So it's worth trying to find out what the truth is and to not just have a knee jerk reaction about it. And am very open to be proven wrong on all of this stuff. As are all proper scientists.
We are in almost total agreement, then, Various Richard Herrings. (And nothing in this thread that I have written has been anti-scientist.) However, I object to having my reaction described as "kneejerk", if that's what you are saying.
My reactions to most health issues are based on me reading lots and lots of books about health, something I have been doing for over ten years. I do not have a science degree, so I rely upon books to explain science to me, and I think I am clever enough to understand at least part of it. My opinions, informed by what I have read, may not be the opinions of the many, and I may not always have those books to hand when I am writing my blog or my comments (most of my books are currently in storage, and I'm usually out of the house anyway), but I can promise you, my knee is not jerking when I put my ideas across. Nor do I expect most people to agree with me. It's much easier to either a) keep your mouth shut for fear of getting into an argument, or b) think the thing that most people think, or c) not think.
My guess is that most people wouldn't mind so much if fluoride didn't have such a chemical sounding name.If only it was called "Happy Healthy Teeth Juice" I think most of the detractors would be happy.
I certainly would. And can GM food be called Better, Nicer Food please? And nuclear power Little Baby Rabbits?
"health has to be the responsibility of the individual, while the government's responsibility is to provide decent healthcare and health education, especially in schools".
cant agree Im afriad Andrew - government has a duty to protect and promote the health of the population and reduce health inequlities. The biggest health improvements have come from public health measures that have improved water supplies and sanitation. Legislation that restricts indivdual choice has wider social benefits (eg seat belts, restrictng smoking in public places). Physical, social, economic and legislative environments have the biggest impacts on health and inequalities. Health education and individual choice is obviously not working.
soz
Ohhh a nuclear power debate would be good. As a physicist it's more my area than fluoridation. Just in case there is one: I'm in favour of it.
But smoking was banned in public spaces to protect those who worked in those places, not to stop smokers from smoking. It may have had that effect on a small number, but it wasn't public health legislation designed to improve the health of smokers. Also, smokers can still smoke. And I wish to be able to drink non-fluoridated water from the tap I pay water rates for. If the government wanted to stop people from smoking, it would ban cigarettes. It hasn't, and it won't.
I don't want nuclear power. I'd even go so far as to say, "Nuclear Power? No Thanks!"
I nearly made the mistake of assuming the Richard Herring posts on here were by the man himself but should have known that the lack of a sodomy reference meant it couldn't be him.
@David Jockney
I saw the claim on a documentary a while ago but can only find articles saying their may be an effect, so maybe I remembered wrongly although I haven't spent a lot of time looking. The only story I can find is this one
Putting fluoride in water amounts to enforced medication and unless we're talking about some kind of pandemic I can't believe that's justified. Someone mentioned MMR and it reminded me of Richard Dawkins who claimed that the public distrust showed that people were irrational and not clever like him. But then the dangers of MMR were presented as a scientific study and were refuted by the government so really it shows that people trust science more than the government which, given BSE etc, is pretty rational.
Remind me not to invite Adam Smith to any dinner parties.
Radioactive water from San Onofre leaks from tanker
Sizewell nuclear disaster averted by dirty laundry, says official report
Radioactive leak found at Ont. nuclear reactor
Nuclear Cleanup Awards Questioned
I think if you can prove it's harmful then you should have that right. At the moment it seems it has proven to be helpful and thus it seems selfish of you to expect everyone else to not have those benefits because you don't want them. But maybe you want poor children to have no teeth.
I think in this case you should pay for your own water independently. Or buy a filter. Or drink out of a puddle. If necessary the govt could give you some money for the filter if you agreed that you and your dependents would never use NHS dentistry.
I pay water rates too and want fluoride in there. So what can be done?
I know. Let the government and the water board decide based on the best evidence. Or perhaps they're all in the pockets of the evil fluoride barons. Who want to sell fluoride and don't care who gets hurt in the process.
This post has been removed by the author.
I have had it confirmed that the various permutations of Richard Herring are the work of Richard Herring. Good. I hate it when people pretend to be other people. As you were.
Really, all that Herring and no bum jokes? If the government found they could add something to the water that would make us more docile and cut crime should they? I'd say no. According to this article European countries have reduced cavities without fluoridation because of decent dental services and the fluoride in toothpaste.
@Duncan Cookson - Thanks for the link! If it was the Panorama WiFi special you saw then there's an interesting counterview at BadScience.net (http://www.badscience.net/2007/05/so-simple-a-child-could-spot-it/). I think the criticism of the Panorama hinges on the nature of the device used to show how strong the WiFi signal was and the independence (or otherwise) of the guy operating it. When you mentioned a specific study I thought maybe a definitive result had been published more recently. Thanks again.
Oh, and I also thought that the lack of references to chins covered in nyummy minty dribble meant that it couldnt be RKH (or at least it couldnt be the podcast manifestation)
100% with you on this, Andrew
Suppose it could be unnecessary if in the not too distant future replacing lost teeth becomes routine. I'm not an expert; perhaps that would be pretty costly anyway. General point re scientists and pharmaceuticals: no expert but do know the cynics have on their side the case of Dr Scott Reuben (fabricating test results for years) and the survey that this article refers to ('One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data'). Then again one in seven scientists might say a lot of things about colleagues.
The only thing that really bothers me is the dominance of mint - that makes everything taste vile afterwards - as toothpaste flavour. And I have to say for some reason the sight of Andy Burnham always challenges my usual non-judgementalism.
@David Jockney
Ouch :) so simple a child could spot it. That doesn't feel good at all, sorry for the bum steer :) It was indeed the Panorama thing I saw, obviously the money to pay fact-checkers at the BBC went on...something else...
I'll take it out on Collins and his belief in Homeopathy. :) I came across this video where Penn and Teller describe 'how magic works'. Asking a member of the audience if the card he's chosen is lost in the deck he says "yes". Ask him if he wants to bet £100 that it's lost he says no. It's related to something else I watched by Slavoj Zizek where he talks about ideology. He says, and I agree, that people are able to hold a belief that they don't really believe in. So it's possible to know deep down that the Christian story is probably untrue and yet still believe it enough to follow the religion. He calls it a kind of ethical commitment, just like there is a reward in terms of entertainment in investing in the false reality of the magic trick, there is a reward in going along with the Christian myth in terms of working towards a better world. He tells a couple of decent jokes
A guy asked his scientist friend why he keeps a horseshoe above his door to protect him against evil spirits when he doesn't believe in magic. His friend answers that he does it because he's been told it works even if you don't believe in it.
And a man who used to believe he was a piece of grain and a giant chicken was trying to eat him goes back to the hospital where he was treated. The psychiatrist asks him what he's doing there since he's been cured and now knows that he's a man and not a piece of grain. The man says that he knows that he's a man but wants to know if the chicken knows it too...
He's a chaotic speaker but there's always a few gems to pull out and it's worth watching. Anyway, if it really came to it would you bet hard cash that a proper double blind study proves homeopathy works or choose homeopathy over a proven medical treatment for a life-threatening disease? Or is it that you've invested something in the idea of natural remedies, flowers are nice and after all there is at least the placebo effect which is still a real effect and what harm does it do etc?
We all have our ideologies and I'm not trying be patronising. I also realise you must be sick of people having a go at you about it and you probably don't want to post this comment and start a whole diatribe. That's okay, still, I thought I'd share this with you. If nothing else the Zizek lecture is interesting...
@Duncan Cookson
Things go wrong with Nuclear power. Mistakes are made. But the point is that they are arguably much less serious than the negative effects of fossil-fuel power. For anyone about to point to Chernobyl etc. - Modern technology makes such disasters close to impossible.
Like everyone sensible, I ideally want us to be 100% reliant on totally clean and renewable energy. This is not going to happen soon enough. Nuclear power is the only faesible bridge to that goal. Otherwise we're going to run out of power. You might say we deserve that for our greedy ways, but many many people will suffer and die if we have constant powercuts and blackouts across the world. I don't like it either, but nuclear power may be the only way we can manage things.
Put simply, I think clean renewable energy is better than nuclear, which is better than fossil fuel. It looks like we just aren't going to make the jump to totally renewable sources. So the choice may be to live in the dark ages or embrace nuclear power in the meantime.
I'd like to state that I'm not 100% confident of this point of view. But I'm presenting it as a viewpoint to be debated.
Andrew, you said:
"I could successfully bypass fluoridation by spending £250 on a fluoride filter (then spending whatever it costs to keep replacing the filters), but I don't see why I should have to"
Perhaps because you are one of a very small minority who don't want an ingredient added that will benefit many people. Since you're the one with an irrational fear of flouride (and it is irrational. the levels put into the water supply are not enough to make your hips crumble), I don't see why you shouldn't have to pay for it.
I'm interested to hear why you oppose nuclear power, especially since climate change is a big issue. I await you wheeling out chernobyl etc.
As soon as I saw this post I knew it'd be a proverbial 'hot potato'.
This article came along just as I was rethinking my position on nuclear power a few months ago.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/nuclear-power-yes-please-1629327.html
If even prominent Greens are embracing the idea...
Ach, I've made a mistake, unbelievable. I've confused Andy Burnham with Adam Crozier who isn't even a politician. It's Crozier who... blah blah.
@Jim McNulty
I posted an article that demonstrated that industrialized countries do not seem to need extra fluoridation in water because other sources are present including air pollution, toothpaste, mouth rinses, foods, beverages, medicines, anaesthetics, fluoride supplements, pesticide and herbicide residues. Water fluoridation is therefore leading to increased dental fluorosis see here but has little impact on caries. So we are really talking about putting a lot of people at risk of dental fluorisis (treatment of which is not on the NHS) to help the small percentage of the very poor or very unhygienic who don't get enough fluoride or take care of themselves properly. If fluoridation is such a good idea why has it been stopped or never implemented in several European countries including Holland and Germany see here. There's a lot of hard evidence, not to mention ethical considerations, to back up the position that water fluoridation is a bad idea. Maybe you have an irrational fear of being wrong about something.
As for nuclear @Darre, your confidence that major disasters are close to impossible is touching but not something I share. Radioactive mistakes may not seem terribly serious to you but you'd probably feel differently if your child got leukemia as a result of it getting into the water supply. Never mind that they're expensive, have to be subsidised and take at least a decade to build...Over the past two years, estimated cleanup costs at all 22 sites have escalated from $180 billion to $240 billion, according to the Energy Department... That's a lot of money that the state will probably have to provide at least some of, maybe all. I read in The Week magazine that Germany already produces the energy from solar that British nuclear is projected to produce in 2015. Unfortunately I can't find the link. I can find links to stories about the fact that Germany is abandoning Nuclear power by 2020 here and here. So why not us? It's a red herring to talk about nuclear as a green option and/or the only option. It only makes sense when you consider the lobbying power of energy companies (that made the government cancel its rather modest requirement that they fit energy meters in homes etc) and the fact that the Prime Minister's brother is a member of staff for EDF.
I really don't see the issue with Andy Burnham's former position as honorary vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society. There's nothing to suggest it was a paid job (it's never been registered as an interest, which it would have had to be if it was paid, and 'honorary' suggests otherwise), so all it looks like to me is "Politician who supports fluoridation wants to press ahead with fluoridation". Evan Harris is an honorary associate of the National Secular Society; does that make his successful campaign to abolish blasphemy laws somehow dodgy?
Wow, somebody sticking up for the honour of a New Labour politician there! (It takes all sorts. My reaction to health issue may not be "kneejerk" but my reaction to politicians always is.)
That's not a bad argument by Tom actually but the fact that he didn't declare his affiliation proudly and immediately resigned when it appeared in the papers suggests a bit of a guilty conscience. I was going to go on to say that the National Secular Society isn't an industry lobby group like the BFS but I checked and neither is the BFS. It's funded by the Department of Health! By our taxes in other words. Imagine that.
Am I posting too much by the way?
I was contemplating, whilst rammed unceremonially into a Northern Line carriage this morning, the dilemma of what is worst out of a) No freedom of choice...or b) no trust in the experts/decision makers that we have to rely on.
After 20 minutes of the special sort of suffering that only the rush hour on the London tube (or a sardine tin) can provide, I decided that they are both just as bad really, but that it is an important point Mr H and Mr C are both making, that we do all need to be questioning and challenging things and not shunning our collective responsibilities.
Especially those regarding our teeth.
I mean the loss of teeth is even worse for vegans as they will have to suck on carrots all day whereas us animal product consumers can more easily survive on scrambled egg.
So this is serious stuff.
I still laughed my head off at Mr H's observation that evil people are putting hydrogen and oxygen chemicals in the water though, and enjoyed that logical viewpoint for a while.
I am DEFINITELY posting too much, especially as I don't know anything about anything. Soz
I have to say that I don't understand why it's a problem for Burnham to be sitting on a non profit making society and then trying to implement what he believes when he is in power. If he was in the anti-fluoride society then it would be hypocritical. But isn't it like William Wilberforce being anti-slavery, but then not attempting to institute that policy once in government?
It's good to be cynical about things, but it is a shame when one becomes cynical about everything. There are some politicians trying to do good things.
"The WHO support fluoridation, by the way."
To be fair, Roger Daltrey does have a fine set of teeth.
Ha ha hee hee ho ho ha. Ha ha. Ha? Oh.
Herring and Tom are right on this one, I was wrong when I said it was corruption. As far as I can tell it's not an industry lobby group, although just because it's non-profit doesn't make it legit. If you're on the board of a non-profit that's funded by companies that make the profit that's no good is it. I seem to remember Harry Shearer talking about that on le Show. Apparently the formaldehyde lobby are very upset by their product being depicted as unhealthy :) I can, however, complain that my tax money is being used to fund a lobby group who's science and views I don't believe in. Actually, I wonder if the state has to pay anything to dispose of the fluoride waste that's used to fluoridate water. In that case they could be accused of saving themselves money by dumping it in the water supply. Nice WHO gag by the way.
Couple of links here and here. Okay the second one is from a globalist conspiracy site but the speech is part of a sensible conference. I think there's enough good science floating around to be able to stick two fingers up at people who think being against fluoride is irrational or anti-science.
I have nothing of importance to add to this conversation.
Ducks are amusing.
Duncan Cookson,I think the government probably give grants to the BFS because they believe it will reduce the amount they have to spend on dentistry. The financial costs of fluoridation are small. Thank you Andrew for starting an interesting debate. As a dentist I've always believed in fluoridation as the sight of a poor child with swelling and pain due to a preventable condition is upsetting and the cases of fluorosis a mild cosmetic problem. The contributions above have caused me to stop and consider whether I am fully informed and probably need to research more. Cheers
From what I can tell the evidence either way on this is pretty unconvincing. As a result, I think i'd be opting for the 'err on the side of caution' approach, and leave it out of the tap water. If you are utterly convinced, as men of science, that fluoride is the solution to all dentistry woes, you might want to have a read at Ben Goldacre's always reliable Bad Science website, http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/foreign-substances-in-your-precious-bodily-fluids/.
They should put Absinthe in the water. Then everyone would have green teeth and nobody would give a fuck about anything.
@Duncan Cookson
MMR unsafe, as proven by "science"? Non - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFAJb6g8uj8
I think the best argument for fluoridation of drinking water being a good thing would be: USA + fluoridation for decades = great teeth, UK + hardly any fluoridation = famously bad teeth. Perhaps we could compensate by having accessible dentistry. Good luck with that one, eh?
And nuclear power is clearly the only workable short-term solution against climate change. Making it safe(r) is unfathomably cheaper, more achievable, and has less environmental impacts than current 'green' methods. Perhaps we can use the money we save to make them better by the time that Uranium 235 (or whatever it is) runs out?
Chris
I'm rubbing my hands together for this weeks podcast, mass debate on flouride AND Virgilio Anderson.
Guys and gals, good to see a lively exchange of views going on here.
My contribution is, ahem, I'm going to see Andrew and Richard in Edinburgh, woo hoo! Not once but twice as well - double woo hoo! Makes up for missing Brighton. Bring on the Tempting Tattie adventures, that's what I say. And will hopefully go to Richard's solo show too.
Sorry for the over-excited nature of this post, must be the fluoride.
@chris
I didn't say that the MMR was proven as unsafe by science which you would have known if you'd read what I'd written. I said that it was presented to the public as science which the public where then more inclined to believe more than the government rebuttal. I've just re-written what I wrote before so if you didn't get it the first time....
The idea that Americans have great teeth and British people don't is a petty little meme that is almost certainly nonsense. Are you really telling me that across vast swathes of working class, trailer park America they all have Hollywood teeth? 47 million of them don't have any healthcare insurance at all never mind dental. We probably have less great teeth and less bad teeth as a result of the NHS. Anyway, according to the Roger Daltrey at the WHO, dental caries prevalence is lower in the UK than the US and lower still in some European countries that have no fluoridation at all. WHO figures here
Nuclear isn't the only option and isn't really short term if you consider it take 10-15 years to build a plant. Your argument that making nuclear safer is unfathomably cheaper, more achievable, and has less environmental impacts than current 'green' methods is kind of ridiculous. The cost alone in America for clean-up is more than $20 billion for each plant and rising, born by the taxpayer.
@ clive
I know why the state gives the BFS money, I just don't agree with it.
I agree with what chris writes above about nuclear power. However, one of the other good things about it, is that uranium is a fairly common element, and although costs of mining it will increase once the larger concentrations have been mined it's still economically viable for a long time. Technology also exists for our new plants to be far more efficient than our old ones. Another possibility is the use of thorium, which is 3.5 times more common.
The truth is, we don't know for sure whether fluoride for all will have positive or negative results. Nor we do know what effects 40 years of the stuff have had on the health of Americans. So, just in case it's a really bad idea - in the long term - let's just leave it as it is, eh? And teach parents to stop giving fizzy drinks to babies.
@Duncan Cookson
You said "But then the dangers of MMR were presented as a scientific study and were refuted by the government so really it shows that people trust science more than the government" when there have been no scientific papers showing the 'dangers' of MMR beyond anecdotal and entirely predictable case studies, non of which show a link between MMR and anything nasty.
I was being mildly facetious with the UK = bad teeth meme, but my nuclear stuff is sound. It really is the only way, and was one of the reasons I gave up with the green party.
This discussion makes me want to brush my teeth, though I probably won't swallow. Nyum nyum nyum!
I would have thought that 40 years of American fluoridation with no evidence of harm was as close to 'for sure' as we are likely to get.
For all your professing of reading science books you seem to have little understanding of it. Naming some chemical found in a home product then noting how dangerous it is in another context is useless. Everything is a poison but the dosage is everything. Eat a pound of sodium chloride and it will kill you, in smaller doses put it on your chips. Use chlorine to kill thousands on the battlefield in WW1, or use it to kill bacteria at your local swimming pool.
The original post being about Mr Burnham and politics, I'm with R. Herrin. He makes sense, in this case anyway.
"There are some politicians trying to do good things."
As regards the flouride - if you will insist on calling it poison, perhaps you will stop espousing the greatness of alcohol, also considered a poison (in however small doses)?!
"we don't know for sure" - Andrew, that's just silly now... we 'd all have to stay locked at home if that's the rule.
- flouride in the water, please.
- nuclear power, please.
- GM food, please.
And a cleaner, healthier, prettier and well-fed world will result. Quote me on that in 40 years.
@chris
The problem was that the public and apparently journalists didn't have the time, the knowledge or even the means to examine the methodology of various scientific studies. Perhaps as far as the press was concerned they also lacked the will. From what I remember the media took years before they started to report that actually there was definitively no scientific basis at all for the link to autism by which time the damage had already been done. It was presented for much of the time as an open question, a difference of scientific opinion. Then there was Blair being evasive about giving the jab to his son and so on. As I've said it demonstrates to me that politicians are held in lower esteem than scientists because being associated with the government position was treated with some distrust. Dawkins used it as an example of how the public are largely irrational and anti-science which I found unfair in this instance. Dawkins knows how to examine scientific reports, the public mostly have to rely on the media.
And it looks like we're both pretty confident in our nuclear positions. I'm with the German government whose politicians are clearly above reproach :)
This report might be of interest - http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/projects/water_fluoridation.htm.
For the record, I do work at the centre that produced this report, though it was done long before my time here, and this is posted in the spirit of contribution to debate rather than an attempt to drive up visits to our site.
Colin
Thing is, you've said a few times that all you want is the "choice" of whether you want fluoride in your water. But then you gave it away by saying "I will have to buy a filter". You don't want the choice, you want no fluoride.
All it says to me, that Andy Burnham went from that first position to that second one, is: "man who thinks fluoridation is a good idea continues to think that".
Jumble, you misunderstand me to suit your own argument: "Thing is, you've said a few times that all you want is the 'choice' of whether you want fluoride in your water. But then you gave it away by saying, 'I will have to buy a filter.' You don't want the choice, you want no fluoride."
No, I want the choice to have fluoride or not. Fluoridation takes away that choice. Read it again. I also want those who wish to ingest fluoride to have the choice to do so. If my water is fluoridated, my only choice would be to filter it.
Did I really "give myself away"? I've made myself as plain as I possibly can. The issue in an emotive one, but I keep returning to the same point. I do not deny anybody else fluoride. I merely ask for the basic human right of being able to opt out of mass medication. That's it.
"Seems fair to me that middle class people who are worried about it should pay £250 to opt out, given how much money it will save the NHS and how many teeth it will also save for poor kids whose parents don't give a fuck."
There are some non-thick working class people who want choice too! As for the 'poor kids whose parents don't give a fuck' - how about contraception in the water eh?
Anna
Hello Andrew,
Just a thought (for clarity) if there was a product which was organic, nice, lovely and ticked all the boxes we woolly liberals like with no risks associated, which did the job that fluoride is supposed to do in drinking water, would you still be opposed to adding it to the water?
*=not medical
Post a Comment
<< Home