Fluoridated Water

So, we in Queensland can now vote on the issue of fluoridated Water.

It is interesting to see this happen. Apparently Beatie/Bligh made a decision
based on the results of a surey that said somethimg like 62% for 38% against.

If decisions are based purely on majority then we face some problems.

1. 38% is a very sizable minority and should not have been blatantly ignored.

2. Where were the majority who voted Yes living and where were the minority living?
It seems , on present information, that there are several local government areas
that have not been fluoridated that will vote against fluoridation.
Surely this must have been known when the decision was made by the then government
to force fluoridation down our throats.

3. Why mass medication? There are alternatives.

4. It was left up to individual local governments to decide on the type and source of their
fluoride supplies. Not a wise move!

Now in case you think I am a rabid anti-fluoride fringe element, I am not. I have seen the results
good fluoride use. But in Hervey Bay we have, I am informed by people who should know, the cheapest
and nastiest version of the many fluoride compounds used in our water supply. It is sourced from China
and there are now guarantees as to evenness of quality.

Let's hope the debate around this issue this time is tempered by good and accurate information and sound judgements.

Artime has a very good point about the quality of the fluoride used.

I'm in favor of good fluoride. We gave our children fluoride tablets when they were young in the mid 60's and living in Brisbane. We moved north to Townsville in 1971 and as the water supply was fluoridated we stopped the tablets. As far as I'm aware neither daughter have had a filling. As they approach their 50's neither has had any serious health problems. One has a masters in Education and the other a Commerce degree and holds a very senior position in the Public Service so it didn't appear to effect the brains. I'd vote for the use of good quality fluoride in the water.

Whitewood

Valid points in both of the above - especially mass medication.

However, perhaps the greatest lie, myth, red herring in the whole debate is that it will improve dental health in our kids - if the kids drank water then I would have to support it [qualified by the quality of the chemicals used] but in the main kids today do not drink water or water in sufficient quantity to cause any dental improvement.

If they stopped or at least slowed down the drinking of soft drink or the energy drinks then the problem would diminish to a large degree. Unfortunately, the powers that be are reluctant to go anywhere near this issue.

But isn't soft drink/energy drink 99.xx% water (which has the fluoride in it?):?

BTW I have no views for or against fluoride.:no:

I used to live in Adelaide for years and this debate was had a long time ago there, seems that Queensland takes a bit longer on these things.

As far as I know people in Adelaide have not been adversely affected, brain wise or otherwise.

As far as our current water supply is concerned, we are on tank water and I can put in what I want, Scotch sounds good:D

I think the water for soft drinks, beer,etc., etc., is treated to remove all minerals, and I guess that includes fluoride.

No doubt there has been some hype around the potential harm done ( perhaps ) by flouride. But sorting the loony
rubbish - mind control drug being promoted by the Russians - to the less innocuous piffle, from the real scientific data
is beyond most of us.

In Brasil there has been debate around this for years. At one stage Brazilians reputedly had more missing teeth per head
of population that any other nation. The main way of supplying cheap high quality fluoride to the people there was thought
to be through adding it to salt. Brazilians are fond of salty food.

I had fluoride tablets as a kid, as did the rest of the family. Well all have good teeth. So tablets are another way to go.

All I'll say is go find a reputable dentist who has practiced in an area which once didn't and now has flourinated water.

They'll tell you that flourinated water has been very bad for their business. Too few cavities that require treatment.

Of course, the situation isn't helped by the kids who are:
1) given a bottle of fruit juice just before going to bed -- 3 and 4 year olds with completely rotted teeth
2) the prevalence of bottled water & flavoured/vitamin water in some people's diets
3) "soft" and "energy" drinks. Soft because their non-alcholic, and energy because they're full of sugar and caffine

Let me confess right up front that I have predjudice against flouride. In fact it goes further than that as I am predjudiced against anything that takes control away from me and dictates what I will or won't do (within the confines of the law.)

The question of flouride has been a hot potato for more than fifty years. It has never been laid to rest one way the other. Some aspects are indisputable while others are vague. The recommendation that it improved dental health rather conveniently coincided with the aluminium companies having large stockpiles of the toxin flouride and no use for it.

Trials seem to have been poorly undertaken in that unlike town or cities (in terms of socio economic description) were compared to each other and there was rarely a control put in place. Funding was primarily provided by the aluminium companies and there appeared to be a tendency for that funding to dry up if the results were unpalatable.

I can remember the first TV commercial advocating floride in toothpaste. It was based on a trial of 21 children. 21! Representative? I dn't think so.

I have not seen conclusive evidence that flouridation of the water supplies have an impact on dental health. When I was thirty I had a medical for a job. The examiner commented that London must have good flouridation as I had no dental fillings. I remember thinking the man was a ****wit. If his assertion was correct there would have been no demand for dentists in London! That was not the case.

Perhaps my real complaint is that flouridation is being forced on us. In any event it will not affect me as we use tank water, but the principle nevertheless offends me.

A search on the net for flouride will describe the issues far better than I can, but I would add that it seems significant that a number of European cities that have had flouridation in the past are ceasing the practice.

Regards
Paul

You ar right Ian. My own dentist will tell you that the runs are on the board.

I remember a dentist in Leeton,NSW, telling me how the kids teeth in the area
had improved with the addition of fluoride to the water supply. He was in a position
to know as he had been there for over 20 years.

However, I have to agree with BM. My objection is not to fluoride per se. I object to
thenotion and practice of mass medication and the ability for me to make a choice,
being ripped from me.

As someone who grew up in a country town with no fluoridation and now with a mouth full of fillings, and a severe dent in my bank balance from a growing number of root canals, I really wish someone had put fluoride in the water. My parents were migrants who had all of their teeth removed in their 20's and had no idea about fluoride.

My take on fluoride is a bit like car safety devices.
Bad teeth affect many other aspects of health than the teeth themselves, so the folks who won't bother to take fluoride will just end up wasting my tax dollars clogging up the public health system.

Most processed food is made with supply (fluoridated) water and the water purification processes (typically reverse osmosis) does not remove ions. To remove ions requires ion exchange purification which is usually considered too expensive for large scale food production.

With all the sugary crap fed to kids these days I wonder what the state of play would be if fluoride was not in the water.