1 Aug 2009

Daily Echo letters

Health chief is insulting readers over fluoride issue

OLGA Senior, pictured, of the South Central Strategic health Authority (SHA), (In my View July 28), is insulting the majority of your readers by stating the SHA knows best over the merits or otherwise of adding fluoride to our water supply. She goes on to say that legislation passed in Parliament now gives them the right, in law, to medicate us without our permission.
This legislation was revised in 2005 to specifically do just that without recourse to a referendum. One has to seriously ask why was this necessary?
To allegedly "help" a minority of children with dental problems, whose parents seemingly cannot be bothered with them, 2oo,ooo people are to be permanently force-fed this fluoride substitute.
It is on record that a majority of people voted against its introduction, not through fear or misguided information as she maintains, but with the democratic right to choose what is added to our water.
To compare; If I have a pain, I seek proprietary pain relief, I do not expect it to be added to drinking water in case of recurrence.
Despite Mrs Senior's assertion that the British Dental Association, The BMA and World Health Organisation all support it, can she explain why so many countries have banned the proposal altogether? M A CLEMENTS, Southampton.

Statement is factually incorrect

IF Olga Senior (In My View, July 28) is representing the facts as seen by the SHA it is not surprising that they reached the decision they did.
She states that "successive research studies have found no association between water fluoridation and systemic illness".
This is factually incorrect and anyone who has read the York. Australian NHMRC and USA NRC reviews and the huge scientific literature would know this.
The SHA also provided inaccurate information regarding fluorosis, fluoride exposure and the nature of hexaflnorosilicic acid - perhaps they had been using the wrong Internet sites!
She is correct to say that "the consultation highlights the challenge of discussing public health issues" but it helps if those running such consultations made accurate and unbiased information available to the public rather than simply attempting to persuade people to also believe that water fluoridation is a good thing - unsuccessfully of course.

Acting like dictators

IN reply to Olga Senior on her support for fluoridation.
1. Bet you don't live in an area to be affected?
2. If children's teeth are so bad why can't every child be given fluoride tablets? Children under 5 DON'T drink water.
3. Why is Thornhill not included when it was one of the areas known for children with bad teeth?
4. You are obviously ignoring any reports that oppose fluoridation.
You and the SHA are acting like dictators and imposing on us your views. If I smoke, drink, take drugs, that's MY CHOICE. You (unelected body at that) are taking away my human right to drink water without toxins in it. I, and many people I know, will not be paying our water bills if this fluoride is added as we will have to buy bottled water to drink.
I don't care that organisations say it is harmless and will be beneficial to future generations, I don't want it in my water. SANDY KNIGHT, Southampton.

1 comment:

Blossom said...

Re: Dental status of fluoridated 9 to 12-year-old children in Hong Kong 1960-2001

In 1960, only 1% of 9-12-year-old children in NON-fluoridated Hong Kong had dental fluorosis (DF).

Hong Kong was fluoridated in 1961 at 0.8 parts per million (ppm).

By 1968 the DF rate had risen to 59% (DF is a visible sign the person has been chronically fluoride poisoned during the development of their teeth).

The rate at which the fluoride was added to the water had been raised to 1.0 ppm in 1967 and remained at that level until 1978.

By 1980, two years after the rate of fluoride had been reduced to 0.7 ppm, the dental fluorosis rate had risen to 70%.

In 1986 - eight years after the rate of fluoride had been reduced to 0.7 ppm, the dental fluorosis rate had declined to 47%.

In 1988, the rate at which fluoride was added to Hong Kong's water supply was reduced to 0.5 ppm - no doubt because of the high rate of dental fluorosis.

By 2001, three years after the rate at which the fluoride was added to Hong Kong's water supply was reduced to 0.5 ppm, the rate of DF had reduced to 0.9%.

Further, seven years after fluoridation began at 0.8 ppm/F, the mean Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth (DMFT) in 9-12-year-olds was 1.5.

The mean DMFT was still 1.5 ppm in 1980 - thirteen years after the rate of added fluoride had been increased to 1 ppm; but the DF rate had reached 70%.

In 1986, eight years after the rate of added fluoride had been reduced to 0.7 ppm in 1978, the DF rate had reduced to 47% and the mean DMFT was still 1.5 ppm!

In 2001, three years after the rate of added fluoride had been reduced to 0.5 ppm in 1988, the DF rate had reduced to 0.9% AND the mean DMFT had reduced even further to 0.8 DMFT.

CONCLUSION: The above figures/percentages revealed:
a) The visible signs of chronic fluoride poisoning in Hong Kong children aged 9-12 years rose and fell according to the rate at which fluoride was added to their water supply (more fluoride higher dental fluorosis rate) but one has to wonder if children were advised during that time to reduce their fluoride intake from fluoridated toothpaste because the dental fluorosis rate in 2001 when the water was fluoridated at 0.5 ppm was 0.1% lower than when the water was still non-fluoridated in 1960.
b) The mean DMFT in Hong Kong children aged 9-12 years continued to fall regardless of whether the water was fluoridated at 0.8 ppm, or 1.0 ppm, or 0.7 ppm, or 0.5 ppm.
c) Some factor other than fluoride intake appears to determine dental status: i.e. DMFT.
d) Fluoridation is still an experiment!

Refer: http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Brisb/techprogram/abstract_82371.htm
2440 Water fluoride concentration and fluorosis in Hong Kong in 1960-2001
E.C.M. LO, and A.H.H. WONG, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong