UK - The great water supplies fluoridation health debate
The great water supplies fluoridation health debate
By Jon Reeve
Comment | Read Comments (8)
As the Daily Echo continues the fluoridation debate before the official public consultation starts later in the summer, reporter Jon Reeve looks at one of the seven target areas that would receive extra doses of the mineral if the plan goes ahead. PORTSWOOD provides one of the best examples of the problems in the arguments both for and against fluoridation.
Encompassing nearby St Denys, it is one of the 11 priority neighbourhoods across the city identified by health chiefs as in need of drastic action to improve children's teeth.
St Denys Primary was one of ten Southampton schools where youngsters were likely to have the most teeth affected by decay. There five-year-olds on average have at least 2.5 decayed, missing or filled teeth.
These are the children health chiefs say would benefit most from adding fluoride to tap water, where they say attempts to educate on dental health have failed.
The picture is slightly better down the road at Bevois Town Primary, but pupils there were still in the second-worst bracket, have between 2.0 and 2.5 decayed, missing or filled teeth.
Both Portswood Primary and Highfield Primary youngsters were in the lowest category, with an average of less than 1.5 decay-affected teeth.
The indiscriminate nature of fluoridation means all residents - young, old, with healthy teeth or bad - will receive the topped-up doses in their water, whether they need it or not.
However, a couple of miles away in Bassett Green and Swaythling - where the schoolchildren fall in the worst bracket - no one will get the added fluoride.
That is because the areas, as well as priority neighbourhoods in Townhill Park, Harefield and Thornhill, are not served by the water distribution centres that feed the 160,000 residents who would get fluoridated water.
On the streets of Portswood, the Daily Echo found most people in favour of fluoridation in principle, mainly because of the need to improve oral health among the city's youngsters.
But concerns were raised about the lack of information about the effects of fluoride, as well as the fact that once it is started, people do not have the chance to opt out of the scheme.
Councillor Jill Baston, Liberal Democrat councillor for Ports-wood, said: "I think that the jury's still out on fluoridation.
"Frankly, there is no good evidence either way. People who are convinced of its benefits tend to rely on statistics which may not be reliable.
"While those who are against it sometimes quote terrifying health risks which have not been proved either.
"Many people feel they need better evidence in order to make up their minds about it, but that evidence is just not available.
"Better dental health could be achieved by intensive education, and of course by providing good dental care on the National Health."
CommentPosted by: Denzil, Chilworth on 3:30pm Mon 2 Jun 08
They should put arsnic in the water in Thornhill. Then bulldoze it.
They should put arsnic in the water in Thornhill. Then bulldoze it.
Comment by: Sam, Southampton on 4:00pm Mon 2 Jun 08
Fluoride has been proven to do absolutely nothing to your teeth! If anything it is harmful to your body. I urge the readers of the Daily echo to research this matter further; I was shocked at what I found when browsing on the internet for the effects of fluoride in drinking water. If anything it’s a government plot to make the people of the UK even dumber I dare say than they already are! SAY NO TO FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER!
Fluoride has been proven to do absolutely nothing to your teeth! If anything it is harmful to your body. I urge the readers of the Daily echo to research this matter further; I was shocked at what I found when browsing on the internet for the effects of fluoride in drinking water. If anything it’s a government plot to make the people of the UK even dumber I dare say than they already are! SAY NO TO FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER!Quote | Report this postPosted by: Ash` on 4:01pm Mon 2 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Sam[/bold] wrote: Fluoride has been proven to do absolutely nothing to your teeth! If anything it is harmful to your body. I urge the readers of the Daily echo to research this matter further; I was shocked at what I found when browsing on the internet for the effects of fluoride in drinking water. If anything it’s a government plot to make the people of the UK even dumber I dare say than they already are! SAY NO TO FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER![/quote] What a ****
Sam wrote:
Fluoride has been proven to do absolutely nothing to your teeth! If anything it is harmful to your body. I urge the readers of the Daily echo to research this matter further; I was shocked at what I found when browsing on the internet for the effects of fluoride in drinking water. If anything it’s a government plot to make the people of the UK even dumber I dare say than they already are! SAY NO TO FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER!
What a ****
Quote | Report this postPosted by: Tate Durden, Netley on 4:02pm Mon 2 Jun 08
I feel extremely angry this is even being muted as an idea - what's the secret agenda here? What right have they got to inflict this on us? There must be action to highlight the consequences to all concerned should they push this through, things could get very nasty.
I feel extremely angry this is even being muted as an idea - what's the secret agenda here?
What right have they got to inflict this on us? There must be action to highlight the consequences to all concerned should they push this through, things could get very nasty.Quote | Report this postPosted by: saddened, Southampton on 5:35pm Mon 2 Jun 08
There is no positive effect of adding fluoride to water. It has a detrimental effect for some people - why are their needs not considered? Surely Supernanny could teach these children to brush their teeth or give them fluoride tablets. Since most of these children exist on junk food and do not drink water. Adding fluoride is totally unnecessary.
There is no positive effect of adding fluoride to water. It has a detrimental effect for some people - why are their needs not considered?
Surely Supernanny could teach these children to brush their teeth or give them fluoride tablets.
Since most of these children exist on junk food and do not drink water. Adding fluoride is totally unnecessary.Quote | Report this postPosted by: Di Healey, Shirley, Southampton on 6:49pm Mon 2 Jun 08
I wholeheartedly do NOT agree with adding fluoride to water. I have a 4 month old daughter and will teach her to look after her teeth properly and not rely on the water supply.
I wholeheartedly do NOT agree with adding fluoride to water. I have a 4 month old daughter and will teach her to look after her teeth properly and not rely on the water supply. Quote | Report this postPosted by: Jim Schultz, Ormond Beach Fl USA on 7:53pm Mon 2 Jun 08
In Theory fluoridation is the perfect government policy. Once the equipment is in the product is very cheap because a toxic waste from the phosphate industry can be used as product. The poor people are very difficult to change on behaviors as we all are and it would be almost impossible and expensive change eating habits to high quality fruits ,vegtables meats and avoid all the highly refined starches and sugars devoid of nutrients. Problem is this was only a theory and several decades of science now show ingested fluoride to give no measurable decrease in cavities. It has given a huge increase in dental fluorisis damaged enamel from 15% to 48% with 12.5% being ugly enough for cosmetic work.(york review 2000). The York review for all the claimed studies showing benefit and safety did not find any of scientific quality. The benefits might be 15% but this is much less then claimed and not statisticly meaningful. Other recent studies also show this 50% damaged teeth from so called optimal fluoride levels. Government tends to ignore current data and fall back on 50 year old studies which were so flawed as to no be real science. Ignored is the fact that all current science shows no measurable benefit from ingestion,only topical like toothpaste. But for kids 7 and under toothpaste is a huge risk as most swallow more then spit at the younger ages. Much of the very ugly teeth are from toothpaste use not on the exposed teeth but the teeth forming in the Jaw. Waterloowatch.com and fluoridealert.org for science not PR. Jim Schultz
In Theory fluoridation is the perfect government policy. Once the equipment is in the product is very cheap because a toxic waste from the phosphate industry can be used as product. The poor people are very difficult to change on behaviors as we all are and it would be almost impossible and expensive change eating habits to high quality fruits ,vegtables meats and avoid all the highly refined starches and sugars devoid of nutrients. Problem is this was only a theory and several decades of science now show ingested fluoride to give no measurable decrease in cavities. It has given a huge increase in dental fluorisis damaged enamel from 15% to 48% with 12.5% being ugly enough for cosmetic work.(york review 2000). The York review for all the claimed studies showing benefit and safety did not find any of scientific quality. The benefits might be 15% but this is much less then claimed and not statisticly meaningful. Other recent studies also show this 50% damaged teeth from so called optimal fluoride levels. Government tends to ignore current data and fall back on 50 year old studies which were so flawed as to no be real science. Ignored is the fact that all current science shows no measurable benefit from ingestion,only topical like toothpaste. But for kids 7 and under toothpaste is a huge risk as most swallow more then spit at the younger ages. Much of the very ugly teeth are from toothpaste use not on the exposed teeth but the teeth forming in the Jaw. Waterloowatch.com and fluoridealert.org for science not PR. Jim SchultzQuote | Report this postPosted by: Lee Clarke, Southampton, England on 7:59pm Mon 2 Jun 08
The answer is to reduce the CAUSES of tooth decay (most notably sugary sweets and fizzy drinks), not to add chemicals to the drinking water to try to counteract them. Prevention is better than cure.
The answer is to reduce the CAUSES of tooth decay (most notably sugary sweets and fizzy drinks), not to add chemicals to the drinking water to try to counteract them. Prevention is better than cure.
By Jon Reeve
Comment | Read Comments (8)
As the Daily Echo continues the fluoridation debate before the official public consultation starts later in the summer, reporter Jon Reeve looks at one of the seven target areas that would receive extra doses of the mineral if the plan goes ahead. PORTSWOOD provides one of the best examples of the problems in the arguments both for and against fluoridation.
Encompassing nearby St Denys, it is one of the 11 priority neighbourhoods across the city identified by health chiefs as in need of drastic action to improve children's teeth.
St Denys Primary was one of ten Southampton schools where youngsters were likely to have the most teeth affected by decay. There five-year-olds on average have at least 2.5 decayed, missing or filled teeth.
These are the children health chiefs say would benefit most from adding fluoride to tap water, where they say attempts to educate on dental health have failed.
The picture is slightly better down the road at Bevois Town Primary, but pupils there were still in the second-worst bracket, have between 2.0 and 2.5 decayed, missing or filled teeth.
Both Portswood Primary and Highfield Primary youngsters were in the lowest category, with an average of less than 1.5 decay-affected teeth.
The indiscriminate nature of fluoridation means all residents - young, old, with healthy teeth or bad - will receive the topped-up doses in their water, whether they need it or not.
However, a couple of miles away in Bassett Green and Swaythling - where the schoolchildren fall in the worst bracket - no one will get the added fluoride.
That is because the areas, as well as priority neighbourhoods in Townhill Park, Harefield and Thornhill, are not served by the water distribution centres that feed the 160,000 residents who would get fluoridated water.
On the streets of Portswood, the Daily Echo found most people in favour of fluoridation in principle, mainly because of the need to improve oral health among the city's youngsters.
But concerns were raised about the lack of information about the effects of fluoride, as well as the fact that once it is started, people do not have the chance to opt out of the scheme.
Councillor Jill Baston, Liberal Democrat councillor for Ports-wood, said: "I think that the jury's still out on fluoridation.
"Frankly, there is no good evidence either way. People who are convinced of its benefits tend to rely on statistics which may not be reliable.
"While those who are against it sometimes quote terrifying health risks which have not been proved either.
"Many people feel they need better evidence in order to make up their minds about it, but that evidence is just not available.
"Better dental health could be achieved by intensive education, and of course by providing good dental care on the National Health."
CommentPosted by: Denzil, Chilworth on 3:30pm Mon 2 Jun 08
They should put arsnic in the water in Thornhill. Then bulldoze it.
They should put arsnic in the water in Thornhill. Then bulldoze it.
Comment by: Sam, Southampton on 4:00pm Mon 2 Jun 08
Fluoride has been proven to do absolutely nothing to your teeth! If anything it is harmful to your body. I urge the readers of the Daily echo to research this matter further; I was shocked at what I found when browsing on the internet for the effects of fluoride in drinking water. If anything it’s a government plot to make the people of the UK even dumber I dare say than they already are! SAY NO TO FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER!
Fluoride has been proven to do absolutely nothing to your teeth! If anything it is harmful to your body. I urge the readers of the Daily echo to research this matter further; I was shocked at what I found when browsing on the internet for the effects of fluoride in drinking water. If anything it’s a government plot to make the people of the UK even dumber I dare say than they already are! SAY NO TO FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER!Quote | Report this postPosted by: Ash` on 4:01pm Mon 2 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Sam[/bold] wrote: Fluoride has been proven to do absolutely nothing to your teeth! If anything it is harmful to your body. I urge the readers of the Daily echo to research this matter further; I was shocked at what I found when browsing on the internet for the effects of fluoride in drinking water. If anything it’s a government plot to make the people of the UK even dumber I dare say than they already are! SAY NO TO FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER![/quote] What a ****
Sam wrote:
Fluoride has been proven to do absolutely nothing to your teeth! If anything it is harmful to your body. I urge the readers of the Daily echo to research this matter further; I was shocked at what I found when browsing on the internet for the effects of fluoride in drinking water. If anything it’s a government plot to make the people of the UK even dumber I dare say than they already are! SAY NO TO FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER!
What a ****
Quote | Report this postPosted by: Tate Durden, Netley on 4:02pm Mon 2 Jun 08
I feel extremely angry this is even being muted as an idea - what's the secret agenda here? What right have they got to inflict this on us? There must be action to highlight the consequences to all concerned should they push this through, things could get very nasty.
I feel extremely angry this is even being muted as an idea - what's the secret agenda here?
What right have they got to inflict this on us? There must be action to highlight the consequences to all concerned should they push this through, things could get very nasty.Quote | Report this postPosted by: saddened, Southampton on 5:35pm Mon 2 Jun 08
There is no positive effect of adding fluoride to water. It has a detrimental effect for some people - why are their needs not considered? Surely Supernanny could teach these children to brush their teeth or give them fluoride tablets. Since most of these children exist on junk food and do not drink water. Adding fluoride is totally unnecessary.
There is no positive effect of adding fluoride to water. It has a detrimental effect for some people - why are their needs not considered?
Surely Supernanny could teach these children to brush their teeth or give them fluoride tablets.
Since most of these children exist on junk food and do not drink water. Adding fluoride is totally unnecessary.Quote | Report this postPosted by: Di Healey, Shirley, Southampton on 6:49pm Mon 2 Jun 08
I wholeheartedly do NOT agree with adding fluoride to water. I have a 4 month old daughter and will teach her to look after her teeth properly and not rely on the water supply.
I wholeheartedly do NOT agree with adding fluoride to water. I have a 4 month old daughter and will teach her to look after her teeth properly and not rely on the water supply. Quote | Report this postPosted by: Jim Schultz, Ormond Beach Fl USA on 7:53pm Mon 2 Jun 08
In Theory fluoridation is the perfect government policy. Once the equipment is in the product is very cheap because a toxic waste from the phosphate industry can be used as product. The poor people are very difficult to change on behaviors as we all are and it would be almost impossible and expensive change eating habits to high quality fruits ,vegtables meats and avoid all the highly refined starches and sugars devoid of nutrients. Problem is this was only a theory and several decades of science now show ingested fluoride to give no measurable decrease in cavities. It has given a huge increase in dental fluorisis damaged enamel from 15% to 48% with 12.5% being ugly enough for cosmetic work.(york review 2000). The York review for all the claimed studies showing benefit and safety did not find any of scientific quality. The benefits might be 15% but this is much less then claimed and not statisticly meaningful. Other recent studies also show this 50% damaged teeth from so called optimal fluoride levels. Government tends to ignore current data and fall back on 50 year old studies which were so flawed as to no be real science. Ignored is the fact that all current science shows no measurable benefit from ingestion,only topical like toothpaste. But for kids 7 and under toothpaste is a huge risk as most swallow more then spit at the younger ages. Much of the very ugly teeth are from toothpaste use not on the exposed teeth but the teeth forming in the Jaw. Waterloowatch.com and fluoridealert.org for science not PR. Jim Schultz
In Theory fluoridation is the perfect government policy. Once the equipment is in the product is very cheap because a toxic waste from the phosphate industry can be used as product. The poor people are very difficult to change on behaviors as we all are and it would be almost impossible and expensive change eating habits to high quality fruits ,vegtables meats and avoid all the highly refined starches and sugars devoid of nutrients. Problem is this was only a theory and several decades of science now show ingested fluoride to give no measurable decrease in cavities. It has given a huge increase in dental fluorisis damaged enamel from 15% to 48% with 12.5% being ugly enough for cosmetic work.(york review 2000). The York review for all the claimed studies showing benefit and safety did not find any of scientific quality. The benefits might be 15% but this is much less then claimed and not statisticly meaningful. Other recent studies also show this 50% damaged teeth from so called optimal fluoride levels. Government tends to ignore current data and fall back on 50 year old studies which were so flawed as to no be real science. Ignored is the fact that all current science shows no measurable benefit from ingestion,only topical like toothpaste. But for kids 7 and under toothpaste is a huge risk as most swallow more then spit at the younger ages. Much of the very ugly teeth are from toothpaste use not on the exposed teeth but the teeth forming in the Jaw. Waterloowatch.com and fluoridealert.org for science not PR. Jim SchultzQuote | Report this postPosted by: Lee Clarke, Southampton, England on 7:59pm Mon 2 Jun 08
The answer is to reduce the CAUSES of tooth decay (most notably sugary sweets and fizzy drinks), not to add chemicals to the drinking water to try to counteract them. Prevention is better than cure.
The answer is to reduce the CAUSES of tooth decay (most notably sugary sweets and fizzy drinks), not to add chemicals to the drinking water to try to counteract them. Prevention is better than cure.
posted by Bill at
9:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home