Bazinga. (and please refer to my previous posts).
This is only my blog, if you have a dental health issue please seek appropriate professional medical advice.
I am not a doctor, dentist, scientist, chemist, biologist, engineer, (or media celebrity), but I know bullshit when I hear it.
An Adelaide University has done yet another 'study' that supposedly proves that 'Flouridation of water supplies directly improves the teeth of people of all ages' (paraphrase), and a person from ABC's Catalyst program (I recognised the voice-Dr Paul Clitheroe?-I'll check - 11/03/2013- it's Dr Paul Willis-NF) went on ABC Radio Local Afternoons Thursday March 8th 2013 to promote that 'study'; try the ABC website to see if it's there.
He stated outright that he didn't want to denigrate people opposed to Flouridation, and then repeatedly did so whilst trotting out all of the same old propaganda about percentages of decay, etc. The bulk of his argument was emotional denigration centred around the fundamental fall-back position that 'everybody thinks it's great, and if you don't agree, you're an idiot/troublemaker/unstable person, etc.'
His behaviour and statements were entirely un-scientific, un-professional, and completely in-appropriate.
Even if you take as a given that Flouride does improve teeth, the study is fundamentally flawed because there are numerous reasons that people might have problems with their teeth that have nothing to do with Flouride, eg, diet, general health; and given that Flouride is now available in most toothpastes and gels, there is no way to calculate the stand alone affect of Flouridation of water supplies.
Furthermore, this availability of Flouride in toothpastes removes any need for Water Flouridation!
Credit to the ABC, they put me to air to challenge the general tenant of the discussion; I made the observation that for someone who didn't want to denigrate Flouridation opponents he was doing exactly that; that there are health issues to be considered; the chemical used in Mt Gambier (Sodium Flourodose) is a Class Six Poison; other sources that can be accessed (eg, toothpaste); and that early regular dental intervention was the best treatment.
I suggest that Sodium Flourodose has 'dose' in it's name specifically to try and attribute some genuine medical property to what is often a recycled industrial waste product, but that is my opinion.
The Catalyst person (Dr Clitheroe?) Dr Willis (NF-11/03/13) stated outright that there were no negative health issues with Water Flouridation, but that is simply and patently untrue, and I direct readers to the World Health Organisation and the Australian National Medical Health Research Council websites where both of these groups express their support for Water Flouridation, but then describe in detail the many health issues directly related to Flouride.
He also stated that Sodium Flourodose dissolved in water to an "inert" state and therefore the Class Six Poison label was irrelevent.....bollocks; at the very least, Flouride will react with other systems in the body.
Unfortunately I did not get to raise other issues, eg, environmental concerns, rates of consumption, how does swallowing a topical medicine help teeth, etc. Again I urge, indeed insist, that you as reader research these things for yourself on the WHO, NHMRC, and other websites; make up your own mind.
I consider the following to be fundamental realities;
1) That water, particularly drinking water, must be kept as un-contaminated as possible, with
nothing added that is not absolutely necessary, eg, Chlorine for water purity;
1) Water Flouridation is (allegedly) addressing a health issue, and that is medication via the
water supply;
2) medication via the water supply is a completely inappropriate and un-controllable distribution
of a (alleged) medicine - what other medication do doctors hand out whilly-nilly (apart from
Ritlen-oh, controversial) - Medication must be applied to specific patients after careful
consideration;
3) there are specific ways to apply flouride, eg, toothpaste, but I do not support Flouride Tablets
because of the potential health issues stemming from consumption;
4) the vast majority of Flouridated Water (often over 99%) is not consumed but goes directly into the
environment via toilets, showers, gardens, etc;
5) even when consumed, the 'flouride' (topical) only contacts the affected area briefly, if at all - drink a
glass of water and note how little time it actually touchs your teeth;
5) once in the body, your normal 'cleansing' systems will try to expell flouride, and the WHO and
NMHRC websites also make reference to concerns that flouride 'bonds' with bones, posiibly causing
brittleness and impairing bone marrow function.
I maintain that Water Flouridation is completely in-appropriate and un-necessary, and that there are many ways to address dental health issues that should be supported with the public funds being used to put this Class Six Poison into the water supply.
For example, early intervention via in-school dental care services, starting in pre-school, that provide regular check-ups at the childs' school. This service means that children get convenient, cheap, regular dental supervision to stop problems before they develop into cavities, and parents do not have to try to wrangle multiple appointments outside of school hours.
The service can be staffed by trainee dentists and technicians, with any major work referred to the local hospital or clinic; bribe them with free training as a reward for 'country service'.
Fit-out a mid-size truck with 3 or 4 chairs and drive it around the region; with only 3 such trucks you could provide twice yearly in-school check-ups for every child in the state.
Unfortunately, the state and federal Labor governments have indicated that the South East of South Australia is an irrelevent community and if you need any proof, I suggest that four year waiting lists for basic dental appointments in Mt Gambier would be a good place to start.
Tomorrow: The TRB Reasons For Decision - Part III
No comments:
Post a Comment