14 Jan 2012

Daily Echo - Letters

Strong basis for opposition to fluoridation
MR Roberts (Echo, January 6) characterises these opposed to water fluoridation as little more than conspiracy theorists who cannot recognise what he calls the "benefits' of fluoridation.
Yet in 2007, three of the UK's leading scientists - Professors Cheng, Chalmers and Sheldon -wrote an article for the British Medical Journal highlighting the weakness of the evidence on water fluoridation.
They concluded that it is not possible, based on existing research, to say fluoridation is either safe or effective. Since 2007, many more studies have been published raising concerns about the harms of water fluoridation, particularly excess consumption of fluoride
by babies and young children. Hampshire Against Fluoridation has always argued that there are strong scientific and ethical grounds for opposing water fluoridation. Our Scientific Advisory Panel includes a professor of oxicology, a doctor of dentistry, a professor of dentistry, a doctor of biology and a medical doctor. We know that there are safer and more effective alternatives to water fluoridation,
Mr Roberts may wish to acquaint himself with the hundreds of scientific papers that report the negative effects of water fluoridation rather than attack those people who raise objections to the proposed scheme here in Southampton.

Fluoride Opponents are well informed.
I never cease to be amazed by people who seek to denigrate the intelligence and integrity of those of us who oppose water fluoridation such a one is Mr A K Roberts (Letters, January 6).
Presumably Mr Roberts read the letters printed in the Echo about fluoridation, the vast majority of which were well informed and the writers clearly not "obsessed with rumours and conspiracy theories".
They had taken the trouble to think outside of the box of antiquated medical dogma (see the report of the Safety of Water Fluoridation Questioned by EU Scientific Commission who described fluoridation as "a crude and rather ineffective form of systemic fluoride treatment to prevent dental caries without a detectable threshold for dental and bone damage").
He has clearly not made himself familiar with the experience of countries, such as the US, Australia and Eire where water has been fluoridated for decades and which are now deploring the state of children's teeth in areas where the costs of dental treatment are beyond parental means.
In some of these countries over 40 per cent of children suffer dental fluorosis (a visible sign the child has been overdosed/poisoned by fluoride). It will take a lifetime of expensive treatment to cover up the damage in the worst cases.
I wonder if he has taken the trouble to mull over the reasons given by other European governments when they decided not to fluoridate their water? They are very revealing!
Now to consider his points;
• My dictionary defines medicine as any drug or remedy for use in treating, preventing or alleviating the symptoms of disease. Fluoride is supposed to prevent caries so, if it is added to the public water supply which everyone is obliged to drink it becomes mass medication. Note also that hexafluorosilicic acid (the fluoride to be used in the water) is a classified poison and has no medical licence.
• We know that chlorine was used as a war weapon and are not thrilled to have it in our water but, until another practical method of preventing cholera, typhoid, dysentery, etc is discovered, it has to be tolerated. I understand a carbon filter can remove it, as can boiling the water or standing it in a refrigerator. These methods are ineffective for fluoride.
• Mr Roberts' percentages for other chemicals found in water are somewhat convoluted but, to the best of my belief, none are added deliberately and some are actually beneficial to health.
• Proven benefits? There is a great paucity of any scientific research into the benefits or harms of fluoride at low concentrations over a long period but a great deal is known about the devastating health effects of chronic poisoning. People who are to be exposed to fluoridated water over periods of ten, 20,30 years are likely to suffer similar conditions over a long period but no proper research has been done to measure tooth and bone damage, thyroid damage, kidney damage, brain damage or osteosarcoma in boys.
MRS A RICHARDS, Hayling Island.

1 comment:

jwillie6 said...

Fluoridation is a Hoax
Even the CDC admits that any value from fluoride occurs on the tooth surface, and that there is no value in swallowing it.
Read the truth produced in the best scientific information on fluoridation here: (www.fluoridealert.org). You will see a petition signed by almost 4000 professionals, including hundreds of dentists, hundreds of doctors, and other medical researchers calling on governments everywhere to stop fluoridation.
There are many large scientific studies there to show that drinking fluoridated water has no positive effect on cavity reduction and to show that it causes cancer, thyroid damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and other health problems.

THe World Health Organization studied 16 countries and showed fluoride is of no value for teeth. Most countries like China, India, and Japan has rejected it. Europe has rejected it and is 98% fluoride free. Many other large scientific studies in several countries show the same ineffectiveness.