UK - Huddersfield Daily Examiner - Fluoride debate is back on
Fluoride debate is back on
Aug 11 2009 Huddersfield Daily Examiner
OF all the major issues in the world today, few still get people going as much as the debate over fluoride.
Those on opposing sides of the debate are deeply-entrenched in their opinions that it is either very right or very wrong.
That argument will no doubt rise to the surface again now health officials in Kirklees have commissioned a feasibility study to see if the controversial chemical could be added to the region’s drinking water.
Those in favour say it is a proven way of enhancing the dental care of generations to come, but those against claim it is forced medication and so is detrimental to people’s human rights.
There are also claims it can cause cancer, but the pro-lobby – including the British Medical Association – argue this is not the case.
Mass fluoridation has been carried out around the world over the past 50 years.
Surely there are now studies that must give a clearer insight into its impact, good or bad.
Nevertheless, the issue does highlight concern over the dental health of our young who may not be brushing regularly or eating healthy diets.
Changing that is down to parents.
Aug 11 2009 Huddersfield Daily Examiner
OF all the major issues in the world today, few still get people going as much as the debate over fluoride.
Those on opposing sides of the debate are deeply-entrenched in their opinions that it is either very right or very wrong.
That argument will no doubt rise to the surface again now health officials in Kirklees have commissioned a feasibility study to see if the controversial chemical could be added to the region’s drinking water.
Those in favour say it is a proven way of enhancing the dental care of generations to come, but those against claim it is forced medication and so is detrimental to people’s human rights.
There are also claims it can cause cancer, but the pro-lobby – including the British Medical Association – argue this is not the case.
Mass fluoridation has been carried out around the world over the past 50 years.
Surely there are now studies that must give a clearer insight into its impact, good or bad.
Nevertheless, the issue does highlight concern over the dental health of our young who may not be brushing regularly or eating healthy diets.
Changing that is down to parents.
posted by Bill at
9:49 AM
1 Comments:
Re article “Fluoride debate is back on” (Huddersfield Daily Examiner Aug 11 2009)
The definitive British study into fluoridation was the Systematic Review carried out by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York (2000). A statement on the CRD’s website entitled “What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found” says:
“We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.
What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.
This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.
An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.
The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.”
The York scientists called for further studies into possible adverse health effects of fluoridation but these have not been carried out.
A report on the toxicology of fluoride by the (US) National Research Council (2006) deals mainly with fluoride levels in water of 2 – 4 ppm, two to four times the level (1ppm) usually proposed for fluoridation in the UK. It concludes that 4ppm is unsafe for long-term ingestion and that some people are more susceptible to fluoride’s toxic effects than others. This indicates that fluoridation affords no adequate safety margin to protect vulnerable groups such as babies and kidney patients against long-term adverse effects.
Further information on the harmful effects of fluoride are available at www.npwa.org.uk, www.fluoridealert.org and http://www.pauapress.com/fluoride/files/1418.pdf
Yours truly
Elizabeth A McDonagh Bsc(Hons), Cert. Ed.
(Chairman, National Pure Water Association)
By
E A McDonagh, at 16 August, 2009
Post a Comment
<< Home