Australia - EDITORIAL: Fluoride whether we like it or not
EDITORIAL: Fluoride whether we like it or not
June 2nd, 2009
FEW words are as emotive as fluoridation. The letters to the editor column of this newspaper is testament to the passion it arouses; the closer fluoridation of Geelong's water has become the more strident the debate, the more powerful the arguments against its introduction.
It's like global warming _ you either agree with it or you don't and you have experts lined up on both sides of the philosophical divide.
The bottom line for the nay-sayers is that fluoride will be introduced into our water within the next three weeks. The State Government has, on our behalf, decided it is safe, that it is beneficial and, most importantly, it is here. So should we have it, is it a danger to us? Queensland last year was the last State or territory to mandatorily add fluoride to the water and the sun continues to rise.
In a study two years ago by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 14,514 Australians from 15 to 98 years of age were interviewed and 5505 of them dentally examined. The report showed that members of the fluoride generation (born since 1970) had about half the level of decay that their parents' generation had developed by the time they were young adults.
What do you think of fluoride in Geelong's water? Will it improve the region's dental health or poison people? Tell us, using the feedback form below.
For every argument of this weight, the anti-fluoride campaigners have an answer. The most logical and compelling of their arguments is that if people want fluoride, surely they can buy tablets and take them. It's true but at the same time the government will have 101 arguments about common good and the need for people to be protected.
Tasmania was the first State to go fluoride, more than 50 years ago, and there is little doubt it has delivered in terms of oral health. Since then, Australia has not exactly embraced fluoride but it now has a dominant national presence. There are still pockets of resistance but the more it is introduced and the better the oral health figures, the weaker the arguments against its introduction. There is no doubt the anti-fluoride resistance will continue but, like the yellow-ribboned Save Albert Park movement, it increasingly will lose relevance.
The fluoride debate is not dissimilar to the one we're having and will continue to have about drinking recycled water. Whether we like it or not, our profligate use of our most precious resource means that in the near future we are going to have to drink recycled water. Major cities such as London and New York have been doing so for years but the resistance in Australia is passionate and vociferous. Three years ago, 66 per cent of Toowoomba residents voted against the introduction of recycled drinking water.
The argument in its favour is the same as fluoride; others have been doing it for many, many years without showing any ill-effects. The proof, if you like, is in the drinking.
Latest Comments:
Why should the governing bodies decide what is best for me and my family's health when it comes to flouride? Do they think I am not capable of deciding for myself? Like other issues such as vacinations etc shouldn't it be for us to decide what we take and what we don't? What has happened to our freedom of choice? So when flouride is added to our drinking water am I supposed to buy bottled water if I don't want to be overdosed with flouridated water? I may be forced to do so because of the quantity of water I drink which means I will be absorbing more flouride than the average person. But as the State Government has decided it's safe for me and even beneficial, I'm putting it on notice that if my health suffers as a result of flouride I will not be resting.Water rates I already pay but I will need to pay more to have better drinking water. Some people still seem to think that teeth are bad today because of the lack of flouridated water. What about kids drinking coke, lemonade and cordial instead of water or eating lots of lollies and then not brushing their teeth regularly?One must also ask why some countries in Europe (including the one I was born in) have done a complete backflip after years of flouride.(signed frustrated mum and nan)
Posted by: Maria Neyenhuis 5:11pm today
Every nutritionist knows that if you add a nutrient to your diet it will help to improve health over time, but if you add a man-made registered chemical poison (fluorosilicic acid) it will have a negative long term effect. It's a no-brainer. How dare our so called public servants force this upon us!
Posted by: Brianna Schembri of Highton 5:01pm today
It must be rare to find a paper pushing its editorial to endorse any forced medication. Particularly one that will in three weeks be starting to injure and perhaps even killing some of its many fluoride sensitive readers. Such people have had to leave Melbourne for Geelong to escape the official lies about fluoride's "safety". Can your paper fully endorse such an ethical crime with a clear conscience?
Posted by: P Robertson of Geelong 4:46pm today
The Editorial 'Fluoride, whether we like it or not' failed to mention a few facts.Brisbane, never fluoridated till a few months ago, enjoyed exactly the same decline in tooth decay over the last 4 decades as did fluoridated Melbourne and Sydney. How? Why - if water fluoridation is so essential?Explain why they refuse to fluoridate water in Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands (& every country of Europe) and generally have lower tooth decay rates than fluoridated countries, like neighbouring Ireland?Why does the Addy find it acceptable that DHS (and Barwon Water) are to fluoridate us using low-grade fluorosilicic acid, contaminated with lead, arsenic and mercury? Why is that OK for our kids to swallow every day forever?Where have our councillors and MPs, Neville, Crutchfield etc been in this fiasco? Why do they believe their job is to NOT listen or represent people, but rather to shove Spring Street policies down our throats?
Posted by: D J McRae of Geelong 3:24pm today
Fact, no safety or toxicity study has ever been done on fluorosilicates for human use. Is is a coincidence that Tasmanian's maybe suffering disease rates very high or the highest in the country for cancer, arthritis-osteoporosis, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, coronary heart disease, obesity, high blood cholesterol, high suicide rates, ovarian cancer, reduced kidney function, kidney disease, cardiovascular disease- hypertension and poor education statistics.Effectiveness studies show no difference in meta-analysis of areas with and without fluoridation in terms of childhood caries. Tasmania has the highest rate of complete tooth loss in adults aged 55 years and more out of every state and territory in Australia. If you Google "The National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004-06: state and territory reports (2008)" and follow the links you can check this out for yourself when you read the appropriate figures on page 24 of each state and territory report. Queensland, less than 5 per cent fluoridated at the time of the survey, was fourth in the complete tooth loss stakes in this age bracket after 77 per cent fluoridated Victoria and 90 per cent fluoridated South Australia.
Posted by: illusion9 2:41pm today
June 2nd, 2009
FEW words are as emotive as fluoridation. The letters to the editor column of this newspaper is testament to the passion it arouses; the closer fluoridation of Geelong's water has become the more strident the debate, the more powerful the arguments against its introduction.
It's like global warming _ you either agree with it or you don't and you have experts lined up on both sides of the philosophical divide.
The bottom line for the nay-sayers is that fluoride will be introduced into our water within the next three weeks. The State Government has, on our behalf, decided it is safe, that it is beneficial and, most importantly, it is here. So should we have it, is it a danger to us? Queensland last year was the last State or territory to mandatorily add fluoride to the water and the sun continues to rise.
In a study two years ago by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 14,514 Australians from 15 to 98 years of age were interviewed and 5505 of them dentally examined. The report showed that members of the fluoride generation (born since 1970) had about half the level of decay that their parents' generation had developed by the time they were young adults.
What do you think of fluoride in Geelong's water? Will it improve the region's dental health or poison people? Tell us, using the feedback form below.
For every argument of this weight, the anti-fluoride campaigners have an answer. The most logical and compelling of their arguments is that if people want fluoride, surely they can buy tablets and take them. It's true but at the same time the government will have 101 arguments about common good and the need for people to be protected.
Tasmania was the first State to go fluoride, more than 50 years ago, and there is little doubt it has delivered in terms of oral health. Since then, Australia has not exactly embraced fluoride but it now has a dominant national presence. There are still pockets of resistance but the more it is introduced and the better the oral health figures, the weaker the arguments against its introduction. There is no doubt the anti-fluoride resistance will continue but, like the yellow-ribboned Save Albert Park movement, it increasingly will lose relevance.
The fluoride debate is not dissimilar to the one we're having and will continue to have about drinking recycled water. Whether we like it or not, our profligate use of our most precious resource means that in the near future we are going to have to drink recycled water. Major cities such as London and New York have been doing so for years but the resistance in Australia is passionate and vociferous. Three years ago, 66 per cent of Toowoomba residents voted against the introduction of recycled drinking water.
The argument in its favour is the same as fluoride; others have been doing it for many, many years without showing any ill-effects. The proof, if you like, is in the drinking.
Latest Comments:
Why should the governing bodies decide what is best for me and my family's health when it comes to flouride? Do they think I am not capable of deciding for myself? Like other issues such as vacinations etc shouldn't it be for us to decide what we take and what we don't? What has happened to our freedom of choice? So when flouride is added to our drinking water am I supposed to buy bottled water if I don't want to be overdosed with flouridated water? I may be forced to do so because of the quantity of water I drink which means I will be absorbing more flouride than the average person. But as the State Government has decided it's safe for me and even beneficial, I'm putting it on notice that if my health suffers as a result of flouride I will not be resting.Water rates I already pay but I will need to pay more to have better drinking water. Some people still seem to think that teeth are bad today because of the lack of flouridated water. What about kids drinking coke, lemonade and cordial instead of water or eating lots of lollies and then not brushing their teeth regularly?One must also ask why some countries in Europe (including the one I was born in) have done a complete backflip after years of flouride.(signed frustrated mum and nan)
Posted by: Maria Neyenhuis 5:11pm today
Every nutritionist knows that if you add a nutrient to your diet it will help to improve health over time, but if you add a man-made registered chemical poison (fluorosilicic acid) it will have a negative long term effect. It's a no-brainer. How dare our so called public servants force this upon us!
Posted by: Brianna Schembri of Highton 5:01pm today
It must be rare to find a paper pushing its editorial to endorse any forced medication. Particularly one that will in three weeks be starting to injure and perhaps even killing some of its many fluoride sensitive readers. Such people have had to leave Melbourne for Geelong to escape the official lies about fluoride's "safety". Can your paper fully endorse such an ethical crime with a clear conscience?
Posted by: P Robertson of Geelong 4:46pm today
The Editorial 'Fluoride, whether we like it or not' failed to mention a few facts.Brisbane, never fluoridated till a few months ago, enjoyed exactly the same decline in tooth decay over the last 4 decades as did fluoridated Melbourne and Sydney. How? Why - if water fluoridation is so essential?Explain why they refuse to fluoridate water in Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands (& every country of Europe) and generally have lower tooth decay rates than fluoridated countries, like neighbouring Ireland?Why does the Addy find it acceptable that DHS (and Barwon Water) are to fluoridate us using low-grade fluorosilicic acid, contaminated with lead, arsenic and mercury? Why is that OK for our kids to swallow every day forever?Where have our councillors and MPs, Neville, Crutchfield etc been in this fiasco? Why do they believe their job is to NOT listen or represent people, but rather to shove Spring Street policies down our throats?
Posted by: D J McRae of Geelong 3:24pm today
Fact, no safety or toxicity study has ever been done on fluorosilicates for human use. Is is a coincidence that Tasmanian's maybe suffering disease rates very high or the highest in the country for cancer, arthritis-osteoporosis, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, coronary heart disease, obesity, high blood cholesterol, high suicide rates, ovarian cancer, reduced kidney function, kidney disease, cardiovascular disease- hypertension and poor education statistics.Effectiveness studies show no difference in meta-analysis of areas with and without fluoridation in terms of childhood caries. Tasmania has the highest rate of complete tooth loss in adults aged 55 years and more out of every state and territory in Australia. If you Google "The National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004-06: state and territory reports (2008)" and follow the links you can check this out for yourself when you read the appropriate figures on page 24 of each state and territory report. Queensland, less than 5 per cent fluoridated at the time of the survey, was fourth in the complete tooth loss stakes in this age bracket after 77 per cent fluoridated Victoria and 90 per cent fluoridated South Australia.
Posted by: illusion9 2:41pm today
posted by Bill at
9:33 AM
1 Comments:
Learn more of Multiple Sclerosis when registered at: http://www.msviewsandnews.org.
Once registered, you will receive our weekly ms related e-newsletter, keeping you informed of current MS information.
And when you can, use our MS Blog: http://wwwmsviewsandrelatednews.blogspot.com/ - to your advantage.
Have questions? write to: stuart@msviewsandnews.org -
thank you and don't forget to inform others whom you know, are affected by MS, of this information.
By
Stuart , at 02 June, 2009
Post a Comment
<< Home