More correspondence

Stephen
The 2% minuscule amount you quote is still tonnes when you consider the thousands of tonnes put in the water each year. Just in Southampton alone 200 tonnes each year was the estimated amount they intended to add to our water. Just for a few families who should be helped in other ways to raise their children in a healthier holistic way. Your energy and drive ought to be striving for the reduction of sugar, the real reason for tooth decay. The whole idea putting in this substance to treat children who rarely drink water is ludicrous. We are getting too much fluoride now with it in tea, toothpaste and medicines.
I've seen the BFS Prof now retired and the head of the BDA as well as many other pro-fluoride proponents and they have the same attitude of an aloof headmaster. They have to promote fluoridation applying for the position of CMO and no doubt the BDA it part of the job description
There are many professors against the practice why shouldn't I believe in them?


Bill




Chris Cooke wrote

Glad to see Mr Slott is still here. Just a couple of points to his comments.

First, we recognise that the 2% pollutants are easily measurable, although by the time they reach tap-water, are diluted down to well within laid down limits. Nevertheless if I were to release such chemicals into water (several pounds per fluoridation tanker load or so I understand) I would be looked upon as some sort of evil industrial terrorist and probably and quite rightly imprisoned.

2nd - Anecdotal you would say. But I live in a fluoridated area. My two grandchildren have fluorisis. I notice it in many other children. You would no doubt call it "mild". Yet it is certainly noticeable and the older girl is clearly depressed by it and embarrassed to smile. This "not an adverse effect" is creating adverse behavioural change as well as it's physical appearance. Cosmetic surgery is the only option - which is private dentistry and unaffordable to many. It seems to me pro-fluoride supporters are far too glib and careless when they describe fluorosis as "not an adverse" or "only a mild cosmetic" effect. To me ANY fluorosis is damage and an outward indication of deeper damage within the skeleton and other body organs.

I am appalled at the stubborn determination of the authorities to fail to research, address or even to recognise the many concerns and issues involved - instead reverting to their ridiculous "safe and effective" mantra - which of course we "must" accept because they are the (official) "experts". I feel I need to say "forgive them Lord for they know not what they do". Unfortunately I think some of them know only too well what they are doing - and it ain't helping little kiddies' teeth!!


Steven D. Slott, DDS reply to me


Mr. Edmonds, one may find a complete listing of the contents of water at the tap which has been fluoridated with hexafluorosilic acid on the website of the National Sanitary Foundation, to which I provide a link below. As can be noted, any detected contaminants in this water are so miniscule, so far below mandated maximum levels of safety, that it is not even a certainty that those detected aren't those that existed already in the water.

---http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-chemicals

Lord Colwyn is exactly correct both in his assessment of the effectiveness of fluoridation, as well as in regard to dental fluorosis.

Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation in the prevention of dental decay in entire populations. I will gladly cite as many as anyone might care to read.

The only dental fluorosis in any manner attributable to optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectible effect which causes no adversity on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. The 2006 Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water considered mild dental fluorosis to not be an adverse effect.

If you truly wish to properly educate yourself on this issue, the websites of the US CDC, the British Dental Association, the British Fluoridation Society, the US EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of accurate, authoritative information on fluoridation readily available to anyone.

Steven D. Slott, DDS