27 Jun 2009

THE vociferous minority protesting against the fluoridation

Majority realise benefits of fluoride
THE vociferous minority protesting against the fluoridation of our water supplies are unfortunately receiving all the publicity, to the usual detriment of the vast majority who have no axe to grind because they realise the great benefits of fluoride in preventing tooth decay. It is a well known, proven fact that in areas where water supplies are fluoridated, decay in teeth is far less, especially where children are concerned. Whereas in unfluoridated water, tooth decay is considerably worse.
In areas where fluoride is and has been used over many, many years, there is no evidence that the population has suffered in any way but there is overwhelming evidence that their teeth are much healthier and hardly any decay. Surely if there was it would have been headlines long ago.
Can we have some headlines promoting fluoridation to satisfy the needs of the majority rather than the paranoid minority

"vociferous minority" "paranoid minority" does that apply to the 15,300 who signed the petition?


Anonymous said...

Nobody is denying choice for the people who want fluoride - it's dead easy and available from a variety of sources. What this is about is denying choice for those who DON'T! It doesn't matter if fluoridated water is the best thing since sliced bread - if ONE person doesn't want it then it shouldn't be happening.

Elizabeth McDonagh said...

Many chemicals are used during water treatment to render the water ‘wholesome’ i.e. safe to drink. Fluoride is currently the only chemical added to the water supply not for the purpose of making the water safe but to treat people, specifically (says the NHS) to prevent tooth decay.

I use the word ‘currently’ deliberately. Fluoridation is a precedent for adding other medications to water supplies. Lithium has been suggeted as a means of reducing suicides and Ritalin has been suggested as a means of raising the population’s brain power.

What I put into my body should be my choice. Even my doctor cannot force me to take a prescribed medication; he must have my informed consent. Fluoridation takes away the individual’s right to choose. For a government to medicate people via the water supply is downright unethical and should never be done. This implies that it is inappropriate to consider fluoridation a matter for referenda or public consultations.

It is not (as stated by John Oliver) “a well known, proven fact that in areas where water supplies are fluoridated, decay in teeth is far less”. The early studies which suggested this are, by modern scientific standards, of poor quality and therefore unreliable. Good quality evidence of benefit to teeth from ingestion of fluoridated water is extremely weak.

Fluoride accumulates in the body over time and is known to cause harmful effects to many physiological mechanisms. It is a subtle and insidious poison.
Fluoridation gives no control of any individual’s intake because people drink different amounts of water and obtain fluoride from other sources. There are in society groups of people such as bottle-fed babies and kidney patients who are particularly susceptible to fluoride’s poisonous effects.

The referendum that really matters in this issue is the General Election. The people of Great Britain will then have the chance to vote out those MPs who support fluoridation. Public opinion has shamed parliamentarians over the expenses scandal and public opinion can ensure that the next Parliament repeals the legislation which permits fluoridation in this country. It is up to us.