UK - Confusion over fluoride
Confusion over fluoride
Date: 11 December 2009
Haworth Old Road
Wadsworth
Hebden Bridge
The fluoride debate rumbles on with loads of confusing scientific facts that makes it impossible to decide whether it does harm or good. There is an eagerness to introduce the stuff into our water supplies, but for what reason?
They tell us it will
ADVERTISEMENTprotect our teeth from rotting.
If this is the case, then it is a pretty poor way of achieving that objective because not everybody drinks water and certainly not if it tastes like antiseptic mouthwash.
For some older people it probably doesn't matter because perhaps they have already lost their teeth. The young tend not to drink too much tap water or tea, preferring sugary drinks that, yes, rot their teeth!
The lady in the Courier recently suggested people should get their dose of fluoride from their toothpaste, which is fine, but for those who do not wish to have fluoride laden toothpaste it can be a problem finding some with out these days.
One reason why so many bottles of spring water are sold today is because of the inferior quality of tap water that has been contaminated by fluoride. The population should be able to decide for themselves whether they and their children should consume this unnatural substance, or not.
And at the moment that fundamental right is at the point of being denied across the land and it is totally unacceptable.
If the authorities were to offer bottled water for sale that contained fluoride, rather than add it to all of the water supply, then just think how much money they would save on the chemical. The rivers and oceans of the world would be less likely to become polluted and the (yet unknown) risk to nature reduc-ed, not just because there would be less of the stuff in the wastewater in general but because no one would buy it in the first place.
I wonder if the water companies see fluoride as a deterrent to reduce the consumption of water to ease their problems in maintaining demand – it is a thought!
The answer does not lie in pumping fluoride into our systems at will but in better dental education and care with access to free treatment (to those less well off), once another fundamental right that has now been denied us through caring Government policy.
Steven W Beasley
Date: 11 December 2009
Haworth Old Road
Wadsworth
Hebden Bridge
The fluoride debate rumbles on with loads of confusing scientific facts that makes it impossible to decide whether it does harm or good. There is an eagerness to introduce the stuff into our water supplies, but for what reason?
They tell us it will
ADVERTISEMENTprotect our teeth from rotting.
If this is the case, then it is a pretty poor way of achieving that objective because not everybody drinks water and certainly not if it tastes like antiseptic mouthwash.
For some older people it probably doesn't matter because perhaps they have already lost their teeth. The young tend not to drink too much tap water or tea, preferring sugary drinks that, yes, rot their teeth!
The lady in the Courier recently suggested people should get their dose of fluoride from their toothpaste, which is fine, but for those who do not wish to have fluoride laden toothpaste it can be a problem finding some with out these days.
One reason why so many bottles of spring water are sold today is because of the inferior quality of tap water that has been contaminated by fluoride. The population should be able to decide for themselves whether they and their children should consume this unnatural substance, or not.
And at the moment that fundamental right is at the point of being denied across the land and it is totally unacceptable.
If the authorities were to offer bottled water for sale that contained fluoride, rather than add it to all of the water supply, then just think how much money they would save on the chemical. The rivers and oceans of the world would be less likely to become polluted and the (yet unknown) risk to nature reduc-ed, not just because there would be less of the stuff in the wastewater in general but because no one would buy it in the first place.
I wonder if the water companies see fluoride as a deterrent to reduce the consumption of water to ease their problems in maintaining demand – it is a thought!
The answer does not lie in pumping fluoride into our systems at will but in better dental education and care with access to free treatment (to those less well off), once another fundamental right that has now been denied us through caring Government policy.
Steven W Beasley
posted by Bill at
9:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home