UK - daily Echo letters
Experimenting with the truth in fluoride debate
I'M indifferent to whether we add fluoride to our water, and I have no axe to grind - but I am strongly against the misuse and selective quoting of scientific research by those debating the idea.
We get enough lies from our politicians so do we really need to fill the Daily Echo's letters pages with them?
In John Hayward's article (In my view, May 14), no mention is made of the Knox Report published by the Department of Health in 1985, or the 2002 report from the Medical Research Council. These studied all the previous scientific research that had been made of water fluoridation, and pointed out the gross flaws in those claiming a link with cancer - usually misuse of statistics. Dr Dean Burk, quoted in the last paragraph of the article, came in for some heavy criticism from the Knox report. The conclusions of his studies depended on an "unacceptable selection of data which
most favoured his hypothesis and on his failure to make comparisons with other areas". Yes, that really sums it up for me as well, John. Scientific papers are not always correct - it is through the review of their methods and conclusions that the "community comes to accept them. Studies can be repeated by different people and the results compared. It is clear that through this process over the past few decades, the vast majority of health experts have concluded that fluoride is not only safe, but a cost-effective way of preventing tooth decay in those sections of the population with poor dental health.
I also find the claims about fluoride being a "toxin" misleading -at the levels used in water fluoridation (one part per million), there are no adverse effects other than perhaps mild fluorosis. Indeed, this level is found naturally in other parts of the country. The irony is that both sides of the debate claim their opponents are selectively quoting. Personally, I simply do not believe the NHS would propose an action which would cause people to fall ill. I'm particularly dismayed when environmentalists jump on the anti-fluoride bandwagon with bad science. The case for taking action on climate change relies on the scientific method - you can't have it both ways.
TIM RETOUT, Address supplied.
The evidence that fluoridation affects the brain adversely is overwhelming. The advocates of its introduction, such as Dr John Beal (Letters, May 11) must be imbibing it as all seem completely incapable of grasping one simple fact Whatever the merits, or demerits of its introduction, the people of this area - by a majority of 72 per cent - do not want it. Would they please, just for once, stop their blathering, and blandishments, and listen to what we are saying?
D R SMITH, Southampton.
The Irish Dental Association recently revealed that by the age of fifteen, 75% of Irish children have experienced tooth decay. Research indicates that it is children from more deprived backgrounds who have a higher risk of decay.
Sounds familiar? I'm sure if the local Strategic Health Authority (SHA) were responsible for Southern Ireland they would soon call for a consultation on fluoridation - except that Ireland is fluoridated already. They have been for many decades.
In 2006 the Oral Health Services Research Centre in Cork reported a 700% rise in dental fluorosis among 15-year-olds since 1984 and according to the Irish Osteoporosis Society Ireland has a prevalence of osteoporosis causing increasing numbers of hip fractures. There is a predicted doubling in the annual number of hip fractures in less than 20 years.
In the light of this evidence the SHA should reconsider their decision to fluoridate our water.
Bill Edmunds
Cadnam
I'M indifferent to whether we add fluoride to our water, and I have no axe to grind - but I am strongly against the misuse and selective quoting of scientific research by those debating the idea.
We get enough lies from our politicians so do we really need to fill the Daily Echo's letters pages with them?
In John Hayward's article (In my view, May 14), no mention is made of the Knox Report published by the Department of Health in 1985, or the 2002 report from the Medical Research Council. These studied all the previous scientific research that had been made of water fluoridation, and pointed out the gross flaws in those claiming a link with cancer - usually misuse of statistics. Dr Dean Burk, quoted in the last paragraph of the article, came in for some heavy criticism from the Knox report. The conclusions of his studies depended on an "unacceptable selection of data which
most favoured his hypothesis and on his failure to make comparisons with other areas". Yes, that really sums it up for me as well, John. Scientific papers are not always correct - it is through the review of their methods and conclusions that the "community comes to accept them. Studies can be repeated by different people and the results compared. It is clear that through this process over the past few decades, the vast majority of health experts have concluded that fluoride is not only safe, but a cost-effective way of preventing tooth decay in those sections of the population with poor dental health.
I also find the claims about fluoride being a "toxin" misleading -at the levels used in water fluoridation (one part per million), there are no adverse effects other than perhaps mild fluorosis. Indeed, this level is found naturally in other parts of the country. The irony is that both sides of the debate claim their opponents are selectively quoting. Personally, I simply do not believe the NHS would propose an action which would cause people to fall ill. I'm particularly dismayed when environmentalists jump on the anti-fluoride bandwagon with bad science. The case for taking action on climate change relies on the scientific method - you can't have it both ways.
TIM RETOUT, Address supplied.
The evidence that fluoridation affects the brain adversely is overwhelming. The advocates of its introduction, such as Dr John Beal (Letters, May 11) must be imbibing it as all seem completely incapable of grasping one simple fact Whatever the merits, or demerits of its introduction, the people of this area - by a majority of 72 per cent - do not want it. Would they please, just for once, stop their blathering, and blandishments, and listen to what we are saying?
D R SMITH, Southampton.
The Irish Dental Association recently revealed that by the age of fifteen, 75% of Irish children have experienced tooth decay. Research indicates that it is children from more deprived backgrounds who have a higher risk of decay.
Sounds familiar? I'm sure if the local Strategic Health Authority (SHA) were responsible for Southern Ireland they would soon call for a consultation on fluoridation - except that Ireland is fluoridated already. They have been for many decades.
In 2006 the Oral Health Services Research Centre in Cork reported a 700% rise in dental fluorosis among 15-year-olds since 1984 and according to the Irish Osteoporosis Society Ireland has a prevalence of osteoporosis causing increasing numbers of hip fractures. There is a predicted doubling in the annual number of hip fractures in less than 20 years.
In the light of this evidence the SHA should reconsider their decision to fluoridate our water.
Bill Edmunds
Cadnam
posted by Bill at
8:47 AM
1 Comments:
When the Irish government went through the motions of asking the public in 2000/2001, 92% of respondents who came from every county here, were opposed to fluoridation, now 47 years old-in-the-tooth. But just like the SCSHA in Hampshire, the public view was dismissed because our nanny health minister knows what's best for us, even when the scientific evidence does not support her, as demonstrated by the UK's York Review of 2000. And whatever happened to individual informed consent as required by the European Convention on Biomedicine, this is state medication, stupid!
By
Robert Pocock, at 26 May, 2010
Post a Comment
<< Home