UK - Fluoridation denies the consumer their freedom of choice
Fluoridation denies the consumer their freedom of choice
Regarding fluoridation, all I can say is: "Here we go again." (Yorkshire Post, February 22).
We are now in the 21st century. People care about their appearance and parents would not wish their children to have brown, scarred teeth that cannot be whitened. Dental fluorosis is unsightly. The York Review 2000 found high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as "just a cosmetic issue" in fluoridated areas. We care about additives, and food manufacturers are removing dyes from their products and replacing them with natural colourings.
Nothing should be added to the public water supply that is not necessary for purification. Fluoridation is mass medication, which is a violation of human rights. It denies the consumer freedom of choice.
Fluoride is available in toothpaste for those who want it. Fluoridation is past its sell-by date. Why not try dental health education in schools and more NHS dentists?
From: Douglas Dale, Crawford Drive, Wakefield, West Yorkshire.
BASICALLY, I have to say "no thanks" to fluoride in my/our water (Yorkshire Post, February 26). While I cannot match
Dr Nigel Carter's obvious knowledge and dental experience, I do have sufficient knowledge and experience to challenge several areas and statistics used in his interesting but obviously biased article.
Firstly, I am 77 and still have all my lower teeth, perhaps partially because my family were extremely poor, and from 1940 to 1950 or so, we children could not indulge in confectionery like today's youngsters. Wartime and rationing saw to that. So I would challenge the figure that in 1970 "one in three people over 16 years had no teeth at all". Was that in England? Or all the UK or just Birmingham or where?
What about the omissions in the piece? Why not mention that Ireland is the only member of the EU currently using fluoride, and is also reviewing it. All the other member states have banned its use, plus Switzerland, after 40 years of trials, threw it out several years ago. Furthermore, yes, fluoride does occur naturally, but not in all parts of the country, and the substance used in water fluoridation is, in fact, a registered poison, hexafluorosilicate, and is a
by-product of the production of pesticides. Nothing "natural" about it.
As for saying that research reports "have all come down hugely in favour of fluoridation being continued or increased", Dr Carter must surely have known or been aware of the major government-sponsored research conducted into fluoride research at York University only a couple of years ago, which Ministers then refused to publish when it reported adversely!
I could go on but, sufficient to say that I was pleased to be acting as chairman of WaterWatch Network Ltd from 1992 to 1996, a campaigning group based in Yorkshire with many experts on all matters to do with the water industry who were much more knowledgeable than myself.
Finally, in part due to our campaigning over the years, Kelda Group plc, the actual owners of Yorkshire Water, made it a policy, not to participate in fluoridation without a firm "indemnity clause" being built into any contract to protect them from any legal claims which might arise from fluoridation.
Cautious or what, Dr Carter?
From: Dianne Standen, High Street, Maryport, Cumbria.
THOSE who support the use of fluoride must ask themselves whether drinking fluoride is the best way to tackle decay?
Applying it to the teeth through toothpaste is believed to be far more effective. It also has the advantage in that it gives the population choice, rather than pouring money down the drain with the expense of water fluoridation. Money would be better spent on dental services, diet advice and free toothpaste to those known to be at risk of early dental decay.
Dr Nigel Carter's claims (Yorkshire Post, February 26) about widespread support for this action are not borne out by recent newspaper polls on the subject. Here in West Cumbria, fluoridated for over 30 years, a council-initiated poll logged more than 90 per cent opposition.
At least communities in proposed new schemes will have the prospect of a consultation to determine support for water fluoridation. However, the consultation appears to mostly consist of informing the media and local authorities of a proposal to fluoridate.
We can only suggest that others look at information from a wide variety of sources and ensure that they are 100 per cent confident about using fluoridated water.
Regarding fluoridation, all I can say is: "Here we go again." (Yorkshire Post, February 22).
We are now in the 21st century. People care about their appearance and parents would not wish their children to have brown, scarred teeth that cannot be whitened. Dental fluorosis is unsightly. The York Review 2000 found high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as "just a cosmetic issue" in fluoridated areas. We care about additives, and food manufacturers are removing dyes from their products and replacing them with natural colourings.
Nothing should be added to the public water supply that is not necessary for purification. Fluoridation is mass medication, which is a violation of human rights. It denies the consumer freedom of choice.
Fluoride is available in toothpaste for those who want it. Fluoridation is past its sell-by date. Why not try dental health education in schools and more NHS dentists?
From: Douglas Dale, Crawford Drive, Wakefield, West Yorkshire.
BASICALLY, I have to say "no thanks" to fluoride in my/our water (Yorkshire Post, February 26). While I cannot match
Dr Nigel Carter's obvious knowledge and dental experience, I do have sufficient knowledge and experience to challenge several areas and statistics used in his interesting but obviously biased article.
Firstly, I am 77 and still have all my lower teeth, perhaps partially because my family were extremely poor, and from 1940 to 1950 or so, we children could not indulge in confectionery like today's youngsters. Wartime and rationing saw to that. So I would challenge the figure that in 1970 "one in three people over 16 years had no teeth at all". Was that in England? Or all the UK or just Birmingham or where?
What about the omissions in the piece? Why not mention that Ireland is the only member of the EU currently using fluoride, and is also reviewing it. All the other member states have banned its use, plus Switzerland, after 40 years of trials, threw it out several years ago. Furthermore, yes, fluoride does occur naturally, but not in all parts of the country, and the substance used in water fluoridation is, in fact, a registered poison, hexafluorosilicate, and is a
by-product of the production of pesticides. Nothing "natural" about it.
As for saying that research reports "have all come down hugely in favour of fluoridation being continued or increased", Dr Carter must surely have known or been aware of the major government-sponsored research conducted into fluoride research at York University only a couple of years ago, which Ministers then refused to publish when it reported adversely!
I could go on but, sufficient to say that I was pleased to be acting as chairman of WaterWatch Network Ltd from 1992 to 1996, a campaigning group based in Yorkshire with many experts on all matters to do with the water industry who were much more knowledgeable than myself.
Finally, in part due to our campaigning over the years, Kelda Group plc, the actual owners of Yorkshire Water, made it a policy, not to participate in fluoridation without a firm "indemnity clause" being built into any contract to protect them from any legal claims which might arise from fluoridation.
Cautious or what, Dr Carter?
From: Dianne Standen, High Street, Maryport, Cumbria.
THOSE who support the use of fluoride must ask themselves whether drinking fluoride is the best way to tackle decay?
Applying it to the teeth through toothpaste is believed to be far more effective. It also has the advantage in that it gives the population choice, rather than pouring money down the drain with the expense of water fluoridation. Money would be better spent on dental services, diet advice and free toothpaste to those known to be at risk of early dental decay.
Dr Nigel Carter's claims (Yorkshire Post, February 26) about widespread support for this action are not borne out by recent newspaper polls on the subject. Here in West Cumbria, fluoridated for over 30 years, a council-initiated poll logged more than 90 per cent opposition.
At least communities in proposed new schemes will have the prospect of a consultation to determine support for water fluoridation. However, the consultation appears to mostly consist of informing the media and local authorities of a proposal to fluoridate.
We can only suggest that others look at information from a wide variety of sources and ensure that they are 100 per cent confident about using fluoridated water.
posted by Bill at
9:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home