.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Canada - Talk about a debate that's long in the tooth ... We've voted on adding fluoride to our water about every decade -- and it's back

Wed, March 12, 2008
Talk about a debate that's long in the tooth ... We've voted on adding fluoride to our water about every decade -- and it's back
UPDATED: 2008-03-12 01:29:45 MST
By MICHAEL PLATT
Google "fluoride in water," and you'll get 5,250,000 results.
Sit through a public city council debate on fluoride in Calgary's water, and it'll feel like you've heard five million different opinions on the subject -- and you'll still have no clear answer.
The last time aldermen tackled the issue, sending it to a public plebiscite in 1998, those watching wondered if they'd be wearing dentures by the time the bickering between politicians and experts ended, some seven hours later.
And now, a decade into the future, Calgary's wading into the fluoride war again.
Yesterday morning, the phone rings, and it's a source in the health-care field, who says a certain alderman is preparing a motion asking city hall to re-open the fluoride debate.

A few calls later, and Ald. Druh Farrell is confirming she is the one writing the motion, taking Calgary back into the most consistently controversial subject in municipal history.
Calgarians have gone to the polls for six previous plebiscites on this issue -- 1998, 1989, 1971, 1966, 1961 and 1957 -- and Farrell's motion, if successful, would likely mean a seventh trip to the polls.
If there are questions over whether Calgarians should be ingesting fluoride, there's also the question of whether Calgarians can stomach yet another fluoride fight.
To that, Farrell says yes.
"I do think so," she said. "There is new information building up on the damaging effects of fluoride, and I believe it's something to discuss."
Currently, Calgary tops up naturally occurring fluoride to 0.7 parts per million, at a cost of roughly $500,000 a year.
Farrell's motion isn't ready to roll yet -- "I'm still toying with the language," she said -- but there's no doubt which side she'll be on when the arguments start to flow.
Pre-council, Farrell was an opponent of fluoride, which was added to our water in 1991, after the '89 plebiscite.
There's nothing to suggest Farrell's changed her mind on the subject.
"I've always been opposed to it -- I don't believe we have the right to medicate it; we have the right to clean water, and to force medication on people violates that right," she said.
That the city shouldn't mess with Calgary's water was a key mantra for the anti-fluoride side last time, too, along with reams of evidence suggesting the chemical is a health hazard.
Those who oppose fluoride will tell you it builds up in the brain, causes cancer in children, triggers birth defects and is a source of skeletal deficiencies and weakened immune systems.
Of course, the pro-fluoride side counters with its own pile of evidence, showing that as an additive in water, fluoride prevents tooth decay and is perfectly safe.
They'll cite studies -- including a 2007 report from Australia's National Health Council -- which conclude the health risks attributed to fluoride are unfounded.
And they'll tell you that without fluoride, lower-income citizens suffer tooth decay at a much greater rate.
Beyond the clash of fluoride "facts," the 1998 water war grew even more bitter when the Calgary Regional Health Authority kicked in $250,000 for a pro-fluoride advertising campaign.
It was -- of course -- decried by opponents as an unfair use of taxpayer money to influence the vote.
Those who were outraged by health region involvement the last time around had better brace themselves.
Within minutes of learning about Farrell's embryonic motion, Calgary Health Region officials were firing off research documents, touting fluoride's benefits.
"We are confident the literature continues to point to fluoride as safe and effective," said Dr. Richard Musto, Calgary's medical officer of health.
After spending a quarter-million dollars, the health region campaign to convince Calgarians to keep the chemical worked, and 55% voted in favour of retaining fluoride.
It was a narrow vote, as was the 1989 plebiscite, when 53% of Calgarians gave the green light to fluoride.
Whether citizens are ready to bite at yet another fluoride plebiscite remains to be seen.
At least we know what to expect from another fluoride fight: It'll be long, it'll be expensive and likely it won't be the last.

How can we fight this when they spend that kind of money. In Southampton the Strategic Health Authority I believe are using an International PR firm?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home