UK - Daily Echo - Beware of 'facts' behind fluoridation
Beware of 'facts' behind fluoridation
THOSE opposed to water fluoridation have for a long time said that those in favour cherry-pick their statistics, use bad science and crazy logic (some people assume wrongly it is the other way around). This is well demonstrated by John Beal MBE, vice-chairman of the British Fluoridation Society in the Echo (In My View, May 28).
For instance he says that children on average have 2.25 fewer teeth decayed, missing and filled in fluoridated areas than in non-fluoridated. How is that physically possible, considering that children in Southampton only have 1.13 decayed, missing or filled teeth in the first place?
So the magic of fluoride is going to give them negative amounts of fillings? It is blatantly crazy logic.
In fact Southampton's children have some of the best teeth of any city in Britain and indeed the world already, without fluoride in the water.
John Beal then goes on to use his farcical numbers to work out how many fillings and teeth could be saved, completely missing the point that his statistics are physically impossible to work.
In fact what he is quoting is based on very old research which the York Review said was "poor quality" and does not tie in at all with more modern good-quality research.
Unsafe
For instance recent research from Ontario in Canada shows that fluoridated Ontario has almost identical tooth decay rates compared with non-fluoridated Quebec. So they are now considering following Quebec's lead and stopping fluoridation. Fluoridation demonstrably does not work and is highly unsafe in the body.
Then the pro-fluoride camp often point to the number of children I having their teeth extracted, and how awful this is for the children. I have heard Southampton PCT put precisely this point. This is intended to get the emotions going.
They omit to mention that the large majority of dental extraction in children is due to problems like "bottle caries". This is when dummies are left in children's mouths for a long time, often sweetened with sugar. This does major damage to the children's | teeth leading to extractions. But it has zero to do with whether there is fluoride in the water or not, and it is scientifically dishonest to use this when arguing about water fluoridation.
So beware of the misinformation and bad science. You see it all the time, not just from John Beal MBE, and unfortunately it comes from those in authority who are entrusted to be scientifically honest with us.
THOSE opposed to water fluoridation have for a long time said that those in favour cherry-pick their statistics, use bad science and crazy logic (some people assume wrongly it is the other way around). This is well demonstrated by John Beal MBE, vice-chairman of the British Fluoridation Society in the Echo (In My View, May 28).
For instance he says that children on average have 2.25 fewer teeth decayed, missing and filled in fluoridated areas than in non-fluoridated. How is that physically possible, considering that children in Southampton only have 1.13 decayed, missing or filled teeth in the first place?
So the magic of fluoride is going to give them negative amounts of fillings? It is blatantly crazy logic.
In fact Southampton's children have some of the best teeth of any city in Britain and indeed the world already, without fluoride in the water.
John Beal then goes on to use his farcical numbers to work out how many fillings and teeth could be saved, completely missing the point that his statistics are physically impossible to work.
In fact what he is quoting is based on very old research which the York Review said was "poor quality" and does not tie in at all with more modern good-quality research.
Unsafe
For instance recent research from Ontario in Canada shows that fluoridated Ontario has almost identical tooth decay rates compared with non-fluoridated Quebec. So they are now considering following Quebec's lead and stopping fluoridation. Fluoridation demonstrably does not work and is highly unsafe in the body.
Then the pro-fluoride camp often point to the number of children I having their teeth extracted, and how awful this is for the children. I have heard Southampton PCT put precisely this point. This is intended to get the emotions going.
They omit to mention that the large majority of dental extraction in children is due to problems like "bottle caries". This is when dummies are left in children's mouths for a long time, often sweetened with sugar. This does major damage to the children's | teeth leading to extractions. But it has zero to do with whether there is fluoride in the water or not, and it is scientifically dishonest to use this when arguing about water fluoridation.
So beware of the misinformation and bad science. You see it all the time, not just from John Beal MBE, and unfortunately it comes from those in authority who are entrusted to be scientifically honest with us.
posted by Bill at
9:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home