Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Why have science when you can have John Gormely.
Read more about: Green Party, Health
Science and politics don’t mix. Because science is not political. Take for instance the Green Party the UN and top scientists comes out with a report about Global warming and they herald it , the UN and top scientists come out with a report about Chernobyl and they say it was adding insult to injury. Why? Is it because they are all experts on radiation? No because it does not fit into their political agenda. So really should I be surprised when John Gormley goes on about the evils of fluoridation of water.
Now I too have been guilty of this (I actually regret that post). Political opinion is often clouded by emotion something that should not come into science. Also getting a rise out of the environmentalists is just too much fun. (if you want to know my opinion on climate change it is a mixture of man made and nature, it is going to be stopped by little measures rather then draconian measures. And the economy has to be protected as people are more willing to take the steps when it does not damage them that much ). But I have no power I am just a blogger doing all this for shits and giggles. And what I say here would be far from what I would actually do if I had power. But when you are in a position of power you no longer can go off on random rantings, you have to produce sensible policy based on fact.
But John Gormley campaigning against Fluoridation of water caught me on the hop. I mean what is the deal with that.
In the debate on Prime Time we had. In favour of fluoridation Dr Jacinta McLoughlin a member of the Monitoring Group on the Expert Body on Fluoridation who works at the Dublin Dental School & Hospital.
Well actually no. Here are one or two or about 100 organisations that approve of fluoridation of water supplies.
Academy of Dentistry International
Academy of General Dentistry
Academy of Sports Dentistry
Alzheimer’s Associatio American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
American Academy of Periodontology
American Association for the Advancement Science
American Association for Dental Research
American Association of Community Dental Programs
American Association of Dental Schools
American Association of Endodontists
American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
American Association of Orthodontists
American Association of Public Health Dentistry
American Cancer Society
American College of Dentists
American College of Physicians - American Society of Internal Medicine
American College of Prosthodontists
American Council on Science and Health
American Dental Assistants Association
American Dental Association
American Dental Hygienists’ Association
American Dietetic Association
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
American Hospital Association
American Medical Association
American Nurse Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Pharmaceutical Association
American Public Health Association
American School Health Association
American Society of Clinical Nutrition
American Society of Dentistry for Children
American Society for Nutritional Sciences
American Student Dental Association
American Veterinary Medical Association
American Water Works Association
Association for Academic Health Centers
Association of Material and Child Health Programs
Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
British Dental Association
British Fluoridation Society
British Medical Association
Canadian Dental Association
Canadian Dental Hygienists Association
Canadian Medical Association
Canadian Nurses Association
Canadian Pediatric Society
Canadian Public Health Association
Chocolate Manufacturers Association
Consumer Federation of American
Delta Dental Plan Association
European Organization for Caries Research
FDI World Dental Federation
Federation of Special Care Organizations in Dentistry
Academy of Dentistry for Persons with Disabilities
American Association of Hospital Dentists
American Society for Geriatric Dentistry
Health Insurance Association of America
Hispanic Dental Association
International Association for Dental Research
International Association for Orthodontics
International College of Dentists
Institute of Medicine
Massachusetts Coalition of Oral Health
National Academy of Sciences
National Alliance for Oral Health
National Association of County and City Health Officials
National Association of Dental Assistants
National Confectioners Association
National Council Against Health Fraud
National Dental Assistants Association
National Dental Association
National Dental Hygienists’ Association
National Down Syndrome Congress
National Down Syndrome Society
National Foundation of Dentistry for the Handicapped
National Kidney Foundation
National PTA
National Research Council
Society of American Indian Dentists
The Dental Health Foundation (of California)
US Department of Defense
US Department of Veterans Affairs
US Public Health Service
Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC)
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Indian Health Service (HIS)
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
World Federation of Orthodontists
World Health Organization
But of course John Gormley knows far more about dental hygiene then any of these organisations. I mean he is John Gormley after all. And sure don’t we all have toothpaste now. Well I am sure the above organisations have heard of toothpaste and have taken into account of toothpaste in their studies. And I am sure Jack Cottrell, D.D.S., president of the Canadian Dental Association (CDA) was wrong when he said that people drinking bottled water instead of fluoridated water was a cause of the massive rise on tooth decay does not know what he is taking about.
So what does John Gormley base his thinking on. The main thing he seems to base his argument is that a recent study stated that excess fluoride can damage infants teeth. Note the word excess. Not fluoridation causes this the word excess causes this. And considering that we have lower levels of flurodation then America and many other countries we are far from teh excess.
The most recent evidence shows clearly that fluoridated water should not be given to babies as it will cause fluorosis and God knows what else.
Anyway many experts recommend purifying the water given to infants anyway because of contaminants in the water that are not just fluoride. So really I don’t know what he is on about.
His other point is about mass medication that it is bad. I thought this guy would be in favour of preventative medicine which would prevent the dentistry services being clogged up with kids with far more cavities then normal. But I guess not.
I wonder does John Gormley must feel a certain kinship with the General in Dr Strangelove who sends the American Nuclear Bombers to blow up Russia thinking that fluoridation of water (the commies all drink vodka you see) is a communist conspiracy to steel our precious bodily of which he was made aware when his “loss of essence” during sexual intercourse greatly fatigued him.
Thank good we have no button to give to John Gormley.
Any European countries where there’s fluoridation? for example, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Swedan, Norway, Finland, Netherlands, Italy, Iceland? Any of these countries back fluoridation? I understand that, as with John Gormley, none of these countries are actually scientists, so they probably don’t know what they are talking about, but still…
If Finland jumped down a hole would you jump down the hole. Or would you read the sign that says “Don’t Jump down the hole man eating tigers below” and decide to take the advice of the sign that was clearly put there by someone with knowledge of the hole
That still leaves France, Germany, Spain, Portugal,Denmark, Swedan, Norway,Netherlands, Italy, Iceland, etc, etc. I’ve got a feeling that you’re going to run our of silly analogies before I run out of western democracies who will have nothing to do with fluridation. Man eating tigers indeed…
No Finland was following all those countries. And didn’t hear the screams ( aka increased cases of tooth decay).
Seriously if i have to take health advice I will take it from the World Health Organisation or World Federation of Orthodontists before I will take it from politicians.
Thing is, an awful lot of green issues from the 1970s, stuff that was laughed at back then, has now entered the political mainstream. “Recycle,reusable, sustainable.” Hardly a campaign brochure goes by without a nod to these buzz words at least. you kind of have to listen to the World Health Organisation on fluridation alright, but the Greens have been proven right in the past. They’ve a bit of kudos in that regard. Would you not agree?
Ya but the reason they were right was because they listened to what the scienctists in the field of climatology were saying. They were not basing it on the observations of Trevor Sargent.
Seriously if i have to take health advice I will take it from the World Health Organisation or World Federation of Orthodontists before I will take it from politicians.
But you are taking it from politicians. The state has made the decision for you. I would rather choose for myself whether I want to consume flouride or not rather than let the government do it for me.
Hi Simon, , World science opinion is divided on fluridation. And in Europe, Ireland stands alone in its endorsement of it at a national level. most of Europe wouldn’t touch fluridation with a bargepole. They’re not “basing it on the observations of Trevor Sargent” - it’s been the stance of every European state - except Ireland - to reject fluridation as national policy for decades. Europe rejected fluridation before Trevor Sargent was even born.
World science opinion is divided on fluridation
Care to list the scientists and organisations that reject fluoridation. I have listed close to 100. Including the World Health Organisation, American Dental Association, the canadian Dental Association, the British dental association, the British Medical Association, the American Medical Association, the World Federation of Orthodontists.
Dr. Albert Burgstahler, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus in Organic Chemistry,
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Robert J. Carton, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist, Former Chief of Environmental
Compliance, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Fort Detrick,
Maryland.
Dr. Paul Connett, Ph.D, Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY4
Dr. William J. Hirzy, Ph.D., Vice-President, National Treasury Employees Union,
Chapter 280, US EPA, Washington, DC
Dr C. Vyvyan Howard, MB, ChB, Ph.D., FRCPath., Senior Lecturer, Developmental
Toxico-Pathology Group, Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology University
of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Dr. David Kennedy, DDS.
Dr. Hardy Limeback, DDS, Ph.D, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Canada.
Dr. Roger Masters,Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Government, Dartmouth College,
Hanover, N.H.
Dr. Tohru Murakami, DDS, Ph.D, Japan.
Dr. Bruce Spittle, Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychological Medicine, Dunedin
School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Dr. A.K. Susheela, Ph.D., F.A.Sc., F.A.M.S., Executive Director, Fluorosis Research and
Rural Development Foundation, Delhi, India.
By the way, here’s some background on some other professional scientists who are opposed to flouridation.
DR. PAUL CONNETT Ph.D. CURRICULUM VITAE - short version. Updated: July, 1997. BA (Hon) in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University (1962). Ph.D. in Chemistry from Dartmouth College, NH. (USA) 1983. Since 1983, teaching in the chemistry department, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY. Currently: tenured, full professor. Since 1985, engaged in research on waste m management, incineration and dioxin, and the sustainable alternatives to mega-landfills and incinerators. This research has involved:
* i) over 1200 public presentations;
* ii) travel to 47 US states and 34 other countries;
* iii) co-editing (with wife Ellen) the newsletter Waste Not, now in its tenth year of publication
* iv) co-authoring (with Tom Webster, Department of Public Health, Boston University) six papers on dioxin, presented at he 6th., 7th., 8th., 9th., 10th., and 16th. International Symposia on Chlorinated Dioxins, held in Japan, US., Sweden, Canada, Germany and Holland, The first five papers published in Chemosphere
* v) co-producing (with Roger Bailey, Fine Arts department, St. Lawrence University) 41 videotapes on wast management and dioxin;
* vi) authoring the 48 page booklet “Waste Management as if the Future Mattered” and several other articles on waste.
* vii) many radio and TV appearances in many countries.
Other scientific interests: the democratic dangers posed by risk assessment; science in the public interest and the fluoride controversy. Other interests include the producing and hosting of a weekly program on classical music on North Country Public Radio (Canton, NY).
DR. PHYLLIS J. MULLENIX, Ph.D. is a pharmacologist and toxicologist by training. She graduated from the Truman State University (Zoology — magna cum laude). Her Postdoctoral Training was as a Research Fellow, Environmental Medicine, The John Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore. She is presently a Research Associate in Psychiatry at the Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Boston and was Head of the Toxicology Department at the Forsyth Dental Center, a world renowned dental research institution affiliated with the Harvard Medical School. Dr. Mullenix’s academic appointments, professional positions held, teaching experience, awards, honors and many published scientific research articles to her name are numerous.
MORE STILL TO COME
DR. ALBERT SCHATZ, Ph.D. has done research and published extensively on fluoridation and dental caries.
Dr Schatz did his undergraduate and graduate work in the College of Agriculture at Rutgers University. His undergraduate major was Soil Science. His Ph.D. work was in Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry.
As a 23-year-old graduate student. Dr. Schatz discovered the antibiotic streptomycin. which was the first effective means of treating tuberculosis. This disease, also known as The Great White Plague, has killed more than a billion people during the last two centuries. Frank Ryan, M.D. commented on Schatz’s contribution as follows:
“So, calmly and methodically, Albert Schatz, barely twenty-three years old, now performed an experiment that would ultimately prove one of the most important In the history or medicine. He tested streptomycin against tuberculosis.” — from Ryan’s book The Forgotten Plague. How the Battle Against Tuberculosis was Won — and Lost (1993)
Streptomycin was also the first effective treatment for pneumonic Plague which is the most deadly form of’ bubonic plague, also known as The Black Death; and for tularaemia, brucellosis, and other serious infectious diseases.
Dr. Schatz was awarded honorary degrees and medals, and was named an honorary member of scientific, medical and dental societies in Europe, Latin America and the United States. He received the Selman A. Waksman Honorary Lectureship Award from the Theobald Smith Society. the New Jersey Branch of the American Society for Microbiology. He was awarded the Rutgers University Medal for the discovery of streptomycin. The citation which accompanied the medal states that The worldwide impact of this discovery is now parr of medical history. The Society for industrial Microbiology also honored him for that contribution.
Dr, Schatz initiated the research which led to the discovery of nystatin, an important antibiotic which controls serious fungus and yeast infections. He has also done research with other infectious diseases, cancer, multiple sclerosis, atherosclerosis, the proteolysis-chelation theory of dental caries, fluoridation, the role of chelation in the formation and fertility of soils, and the use of garbage and soil to teach science. He was a consultant in Science Education to the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the School District of Philadelphia, He has published three books and more than 700 articles. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma Xi.
Dr. Schatz and his family lived in Chile for three years (1962-1965). During that time, he was a professor at the University of Chile — in the Faculty of Medicine. Faculty of Chemistry and Pharmacy, Faculty of Agronomy Faculty of Odontology and Faculty of Philosophy and Education, As a member of the Rector’s Advisory Staff at the University of Chile, he helped reorganize research and science teaching in that country. In addition, he was associated with projects at the Chilean Ministries of Health, Agronomy and Education; at the University of Conception and Catholic University; and with UNESCO and the Food and Agriculture Organization.
In November, 1965, the University of Chile awarded him an Honorary Degree for his contributions to that country. He has honorary degrees from four other American universities.
Dr. Schatz has been doing research in many areas for more than half a century. His present interests are the social responsibility of science, and how world-wide ecologic damage now threatens the survival of our species.
Dr. Schatz has been invited to lecture in the U.S., Canada, England, Germany, Sweden, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Hungary, Mexico, Columbia, Chile. Argentina. Brazil, Mexico, Cuba. and the Dominican Republic.
DR. RICHARD FOULKES, B.A., M.D. received his B.A. (1950) and M.D. (1954) from the University of British Columbia, Canada.
He served as a Medical Officer with the Royal Canadian Air Force; as a General Practitioner in several remote areas of British Columbia; and, after post-graduate training in Hospital Organization and Management (University of Manitoba 1964) held several senior hospital administrative appointments. One of which was Executive Director of the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster, B.C., one of the largest general hospitals in the province.
In 1972, he was commissioned by the B.C. Government to “review all aspects of the province’s health care system and make recommendations that could lead to its ‘rationalization’”. A two volume report entitled “Health Security for British Columbians (colloquially termed “The Foulkes Report”) was released in December 1973. It contained 264 recommendations, one of which advocated “mandatory” fluoridation of drinking water. A further seven volumes containing details of the background studies were published in 1974.
Concurrently with the study, a number of health-related new programs were developed. These included: Community Health Center pilot projects; a Provincial prescription drug program; Provincial emergency (ambulance) services program; a long term care program; feasibility studies for a dental care program for children and others,
Dr. Foulkes held a position as Assistant Professor in U.B.C.’s Department of Health Care and Epidemiology from 1973 to 1977. Since 1977, he returned to General Medical Practice and has carried out a number of studies and activities as a private consultant in health service administration.
In 1990, his view of the positive advantages of fluoridation was challenged. As a result, he and his wife, Anne, have spent much of their time during the past five years reviewing the topic and participating in International Conferences (Kyoto, Japan, 1992; Beijing, China, 1994) on fluoride and its effects. Over the years, Dr, Foulkes has published numerous papers in medical. journals and articles in trade magazines and news papers dealing with health issues. Journals include: Canadian Medical Association Journal; Journal of the American Medical Association; Journal of American Hospital Association; American Journal of Mental Deficiency; and, Medical Services Journal, Canada . He was “Contributing Editor” for Canadian Doctor, 1967-1973. His most recent contributions related to fluoride have been published in the journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research, Fluoride.
J. WILLIAM HIRZY, Ph.D., is the senior Vice President at the National Federation of Federal Employees, a union comprised of scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professionals at the headquarters of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C.
DR. ALBERT BURGSTAHLER, Ph.D. received his B.S. degree in chemistry (Magna cum Laude) from the University of Notre Dame and his M.A. and Ph.D., degrees in organic chemistry from Harvard University. After post-doctoral studies at the University of London, a year as an instructor at Notre Dame, and further post- doctoral research at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he joined the faculty at the University of Kansas in 1956, where he is now a professor of chemistry. His interest in fluoride research began in the early 1960s with work on the synthesis and biological properties of fluorinated amino acids. He has authored and coauthored numerous scientific publications.
DAVID R. HILL, P.Eng., Professor Emeritus, University of Calgary
Degrees and professional qualifications
* B.A. Engineering, University of Cambridge, UK
* M.Sc. Human Factors & Artificial Intelligence, Loughborough University, UK
* P.Eng. APEGBC (British Columbia, Canada) and APEGGA (Alberta, Canada)
* C.Eng. Engineering Council, UK
* F.B.C.S. British Computer Society, UK
Major career appointments
* Qualified Pilot, Royal Air Force, UK
* Flight Test Engineer, Shorts, Belfast, UK
* Research Engineer & Project Leader, Standard Telecommunication Labs, UK
* Tenured Full Professor, U of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
* Co-editor of the International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Academic Press
* Lecturer, University of Essex, UK
* Chairman of NSERC Grant Selection Committee for Computing & Information Sciences
* Acting Head of Department, Computer Science, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
* A Company Director: Exmos Semiconductor Corporation, Calgary;
* Alberta Microelectronics Centre, Edmonton;
* Trillium Sound Research Inc., Calgary
* Consultant to government and industry
Current appointments
* Computer Science Department, U of Calgary, Professor Emeritus
* Psychology Department, U of Calgary, Faculty Professor
* Consultant to government and industry
* Trillium Sound Research Inc, Chairman and V-P Research
* Academic Press, Associate Editor, Int. J. Human-Computer Studies
Honours & Awards
* Best Cadet: Initial Officer Training School, Royal Air Force, UK
* Scroll of Honour: Pilot’s Wings course in Canada
* County Major Scholar: Cambridge University, UK
* Nuffield Scholar: Loughborough University, UK
* Fellow: Essex University
* Killam Fellow: Calgary University
* Invited speaker: numerous national and international conferences
Special Areas of Professional Expertise
* Line: Technology Transfer; Project Management and Assessment; Research Evaluation; Strategy Planning; Business planning; Departmental Administration; Research & professional: Human-Computer Interaction; Artificial Intelligence; Speech Synthesis and Recognition by Machine; Computer Graphics; Education.
Publications
* 36 peer reviewed publications in my research areas
* 25 invited papers, 3 book chapters, 2 patents
* Numerous technical reports (including for consulting clients in government & industry).
A.K. Susheela Ph.D., Professor of Histocytochemistry and head of the Fluorosis Research & Rural Development Foundation (focuses on the prevention and control of fluorosis, which is a major public health problem in 16 states in India.
Some highlights
* member of the Faculty of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi
* Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences
* Fellow of the National Academy of Medical Sciences (India)
* Author of more than 100 published scientific papers in reputed Journals
* Past president of the International Society for Fluoride Research
Yes so those 18 people compared to over 100 organisations constitutes devoided world opinion?
I could probably come up with a similar list of climate change sceptics.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus. But I hardly think you are going to start denying that. Yet when the vast majority of dental organisations in the world say it is good you seem not to trust them. Why?
interesting some of your choice of experts
DAVID R. HILL is an enginner
DR. ALBERT SCHATZ, Ph.D. did his PhD on Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry
DR. PAUL CONNETT Ph.D. specialises in research on waste management, incineration and dioxin
You know, I didn’t think you’d go for “my scientists can piss higher than your scientists” argument, but my apologies. I credited you with more intelligence. So. Here we go.
1. I said scientific opinion was divided.
2. you asked for evidence.
3. I gave you evidence.
4. you said that the number of the scientists I listed - not the quality of opinion, mind, but the quantity of scientists - is smaller than the number you listed, hence, your argument wins.
5. I still showed that the scientific world is divided.
The whole point of your article was to show the Greens and john Gormley up as mad and unscientific.
Now you want to show up qualified scientists as unscientific.
If you want to go down the route of questioning the credentials of the above-mentioned scientists - people who have had their research published and judged by their academic peers at an international level - then go nuts.
Oh, and you showed up your ignorance of the international debate on fluridation by your dismissal of Dr. Paul Connett. I suggest you check out who he is,’cos it’s obvious you haven’t got a clue. Tut. Tut.
5. I still showed that the scientific world is divided.
Ah come on. Would you say that climate change is dividing scientific opinion?
We’re not talking about climate change, we’re talking about fluoridation.
Have you looked up Dr. Paul Connett yet? Dr. Albert Schatz?
Are you familiar in any way with their work?
Have you read any of their papers / articles?
Why are you eager to associate them with the anti-global warming fraternity?
Is Dr. Paul Connett now an anti-global warning advocate? News to me. Certainly news to him.
What do you know about this debate that gives you the confidence to reject John Gormley’s stance?
You set this up as John Gormley is not a scientist so why listen - at this stage you have shown yourself to be ignornant of the international debate so why listen to you?
My point on climate change is thus. You can find scientists that oppose climate change and yet the vast majority of scientists in the field of climate change now acknowledge the fact that it is happening. Now the vast majority of organisations that deal in the region of dental health also agree with the benefits of fluoridation of water. In Science you can always find someone to disagree. But you have to look at the evidence in its entirety. And see what the vast majority of experts say.
My point was that the Greens usually listen to the scientific consensus and what the experts are saying on the matter. But in this case they are not. Have you read the papers of Connett or schatz. Do you have the medical knowledge to understand the impact of these papers compared to the World Health Organization. I certainly do not. I trust in the fact that the dental experts say that is good. Personally I would always listen to the advice from medical practitioner who have studied the area and know what they are talking about. The vast majority of whom agree with the fluoridation of water supplies.
I’m afraid the climate change analogy is bogus. Climate change is a global problem we cannot opt out of, whereas tooth decay is a personal problem where our choices in terms of what advice to follow don’t really affect anybody else. Even when there was not the strong scientific consensus around climate change which exists today, it would have been irresponsible to ignore credible warnings, as the consequences of doing so were potentially so serious. However, the consequences of ending fluoridating of our water supplies are well known (we can look at any other European country) and not terribly serious. There is an ongoing scientific debate on this issue, as referenced above, and in this case “erring on the side of caution” would seem to favour ending fluoridation.
Ben, I don’t know if your scientists can piss higher than Simon’s, but you’re wasting your time copying and pasting their biographies. Have any of them actually published peer-reviewed papers on the perils of flouridation?
Also, Simon, you’ve lifted that list of organisations from the web site of one group which is dedicated to promoting water fluoridation. You’re taking a lot on faith, as the list doesn’t appear to be referenced in any way. The organisations are described as “National and International Organizations that Recognize the Public Health Benefits of Community Water Fluoridation for Preventing Dental Decay.” - I don’t think anyone on any side of the debate argues that fluoride doesn’t help prevent dental decay, so this is not a very grand claim. The debate is over whether the populace should be mass medicated with fluoride in their drinking water given the increased knowledge of the side effects and the fact that people actually brush their teeth these days.
You’re taking a lot on faith, as the list doesn’t appear to be referenced in any way.
quiet a good point. I agree. But if you look up a few random places.
WHO
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/oralhealth/en/index2.html
CPHA
http://www.cpha.ca/english/policy/pstatem/future/page4.htm
ada
http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/index.asp#emerging
bda
http://www.bda.org/advice/news.cfm?ContentID=937
the Oregan dental association which is not on the list and I got by mis spelling something. Supports it. http://www.oregondental.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3496
So I would wager the majority of the other links are true as well. Even if by chance they are the only ones in the list that are true, the ones I quoted in this post are quiet important. Also I would guess they have factored in toothpaste.
The WHO says
“erring on the side of caution” would seem to favour ending fluoridation.
Not really increase in cavities in the population would not be a good thing and strain our dental services. So that is debatable as well
“Not really increase in cavities in the population would not be a good thing and strain our dental services. So that is debatable as well”
Well, we could limit the population’s exposure to the cause of tooth decay - sugar. That would take a lot of strain off the dental services, but would involve interfering with people’s personal choices. Much like adding fluoride to their drinking water.
It’s all debatable - so what’s your problem with somebody like John Gormley debating it?
(By the way, is anybody else finding it hard to post comments? I keep getting a “please try again” pop-up alert)
It’s all debatable - so what’s your problem with somebody like John Gormley debating it?
Of course everything is debatable. Hence the existence of this post. I never said that he could not debate the issue. My point is the as the WHO says “consensus among dental experts is that fluoridation is the single most important intervention to reduce dental caries” that we should be listening to what the dentists say on this one. I mean many politicians like Bush go on about climate change but should we not listen to the experts on that one? (basis of my climate change thingy nothing to do with the global effects) Why should we not listen to the experts on this one?
ya I am getting the error thing to. I will see what I can do about it
I think that you, and to a certain extent, John Gormley missed the point.
If everyone on that list agreed with spiking everyone’s food with harmless medication, without their specific consent, would you support it?
If everyone on that list agreed with spiking everyone’s food with harmless medication, without their specific consent, would you support it?
Would you disagree with the government banning certain dangerous additives that damage peoples health? Because if you listen to the experts they say banning this is damaging to peoples health.
Anyway the forced medication point it bullshit in fairness. this is not mind altering phycopathic drugs we are talking about here. It is fluoridation of water supplies.
You’re saying that water without fluoride is damaging to people’s health?
Or is it more that fluoride is seen to beneficial? Because if you follow that argument, then you say that banning vitamin additives in the water supply is “damaging to peoples health”.
As for it not being “phycopathic drugs”, that’s hardly the point. If I want fluoride, I’ll bloody well add it myself. If I don’t want fluoride, then I won’t add it. This is an example of that choice being taken away from me, simply because experts say that it is healthier.
Constant referencing by supporters of fluoridation of the WHO and the Irish Forum on Fluoridation would do well to note that Dr Seamus O’Hickey and Dr Dennis O’Mullane of the Forum are the same two experts that acted as consultants to the South African government and advised them to mass fluoridate. Impartial? I don’t think so. Dr O’Mullane is also one of the foremost advisors to the WHO, surprise, surprise. It doesn’t stop him referencing the WHO constantly as being the major world-wide organisation (supposedly also impartial) that supports fluoridation. He just forgets to mention that he formulates a lot of their policy!! For my money, I would rather listen to the voice of the York Report 2000. A review, which started as an effort by the UK government to find support for their fluoridation plans. They examined ALL the fluoride research and literature available worldwide for nearly two years. The Report found, and I quote:”
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 dis-benefit 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.”
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
The American Dental Association publishes an impressive list of supporting organisations, but it’s a list that has shrunk over the years for two reasons: Some organisations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union42, were erroneously listed as supporters and thus had to ask to be removed from the list; other organisations have withdrawn support they once gave for fluoridation in light of the growing evidence of the dangers it poses. Those who have withdrawn support (and WITHDRAWING support is more proactive) for fluoridation since 1990 (or who never supported it to begin with but were none-the-less listed as supporters) include, among many others:
American Academy of Allergy and Immunology
American Academy of Diabetes
American Cancer Society
American Chiropractic Association
American Civil Liberties Union
American Diabetes Association
American Nurses Association
American Parent-Teachers Association
American Psychiatric Association
Child Study Association of America
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Activation Network
Commission on Chronic Illness
Environmental Protection Agency
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
Joint Committee on Health Problems in Education
National Institute of Municipal Law Officers
Society of Toxicology
In May 1999, a union made up of approximately 1500 Environmental Protection Agency scientists and other professionals issued a statement of their opposition to water fluoridation. The following year, they also called for a moratorium on fluoridation based on prolific scientific evidence of the dangers it poses.
Now, this list is not any bigger than the one mentioned above, but if you take out the word dental from the above list, how many “independent” organisations does that leave?
Finally, this is not just about fluorosis. Fluorosis is an indicator of system toxicity. It affects all the bones, not just the ones we can see. There are many other health related actions of fluoride. Before I go, just a question. Do you know how fluoride actually “works”? Well, I’ll tell you anyway. Fluoride kills the enzymes in the mouth. When we ingest sugars and starches, the enzymes start beavering away at them, excreting acid as they go. This acid eats into the enamel causing caries. The fluoride comes into contact with them and kills them. Dead. Unfortunately, enzymes are basic neuro-transmitters essential throughout the body, and the fluoride doesn’t know the white hats from the black hats. It just kills them. Everywhere it finds them. Talk about a blunt instrument! That is why it is important to realise it should only be applied topically, which is something then ADA only admitted ten or so years ago. And even why it would make more sense to brush teeth before eating, not that we will ever get into that habit. BTW, fluoride’s action on caries reduction was discovered in 1920 through an investigation of bad fluorosis in naturally occurring fluoride areas in the US. From 1920 to 1952 the ADA and AMA were AGAINST fluoride in the water. Then the money arrived. GL JG!
Anyone interested in tracking the WHO connection should have a look at this article:
http://www.thenhf.com/fluoridation_33.htm
National Confectioners Association
supports fluoridation, lol
Dear Simon,
Perhaps I feel a certain name kinship to the John Gormley you lambaste in your editorial (and whose name you spelled incorrectly in the headline), however, whatever the reason, I must try to clear up a few misconceptions (partly with help from Dr. Mercola’s web posts on this) regarding water-supply fluoridation evident in your blog.
First, I believe that much of Europe has rejected water fluoridation, including: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.
Second, fluoride is not an essential nutrients and no human disease (including dental decay) has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency.
Third, the fluoride used to fluoridate water is an industrial waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry. It is an unprocessed hazardous waste, contaminated with a number of toxins, particularly arsenic.
Fourth, fluoridation adds between 0.1 and 1.6 parts per billion (ppb) of arsenic to drinking water, and therefore violates the U.S. EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for arsenic - which is 0 ppb.
Fifth, hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which are the chemicals used to fluoridate 91% of fluoridated water in at least the US, have never been tested for safety and effectiveness.
Fluoride is, in truth, a very toxic substance, which is why it is the active ingredient in a number of pesticides. Just 2 grams of fluoride is enough to kill an adult, and just 500 mg is enough to kill a child.
In the U.S., for example, people have died, and many have become sick, when faltering fluoridation equipment has pumped excess fluoride into the water.
Poor nutrition exacerbates the toxic effects of fluoride exposure, which is a further reason why it’s wrong to target poor communities with fluoridation (as poor nutrition is more prevalent in low income communities).
According to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, “Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems.”
Sixth, most dental authorities now concede that there is little, if any, benefit from swallowing fluoride, and that fluoride’s benefits (whatever they are) come from topical application.
When water fluoridation began 50 years ago, it was believed that fluoride needed to be ingested in order to be effective. This is not any longer the prevailing view of the dental establishment in the U.S., for example, which now generally concedes that fluoride’s benefits are, to reiterate, derived primarily from topical application.
According, for instance, to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children.”
So while I will confess complete ignorance of the niceties of eco-politics in Dublin South East or of Mr. John Gormley, it very much appears that a fellow Gormley has very much gotten it right regarding water fluoridation.
Many thanks.
James
Senior Policy Advisor, Citizens for Health US (www.citizens.org)