Friday, February 26, 2010

"Fluoride support against evidence"

More anti-fluoride letters. This one is the latest, didn't have time to OCR the other. A quick search revealed that the author belongs to I've already replied as I wanted to get it into the Saturday paper as I think it has the highest circulation.
Sunraysia Daily Newspaper
Letter to Editor

25 Feb, 2010

Fluoride support against evidence
SO Des Horwood, you are right and 98 per cent of European governments, our own Weary Dunlop, 12 medical Nobel Prize winners and thousands of professionals throughout the world (including dentists) are wrong.

You mention you have three children with no cavities – you live in an unfluoridated area so where does this come into the for and against fluoride argument unless you are giving your children fluoride tablets?
That is a totally different picture as they would be getting pharmaceutical grade fluoride, not the fluoride from the toxic waste stacks of a super phosphate factory.
The anti-fluoride groups around the world have no argument with that, besides you have a choice to give your children the fluoride tablets.
You should give a thought to all the people with health problems who could be affected by the type of fluoride which will be put in our water, and remember it is a chemical (not a nutrient), which is accumulative over the years, and as Weary Dunlop said the symptoms could show up even 40 years later.
I suggest you do a little more research!

Bette Schulz,
Red Cliffs.

1 comment:

  1. As the letter was published on the internet, I was able to get this reply out before the paper hit the shelves. Hopefully it will be published in Saturdays edition.

    Sunraysia Daily

    Letter to Editor

    I read on Thursday another anti-fluoridation letter containing yet another fallacious "straw man argument". That is, a misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Once again, no-one is denying that high doses of fluoride are bad. Attributing the source of the fluoride as a waste product is an attempt at soliciting fear by association. The levels of arsenic is 0.43% and lead 0.06% of the Australian Drinking Water Guideline. Water in un-fluoridated areas (and bottled water) can already have levels 200 or so times higher and still be considered safe.

    If anyone is interested, have a look at the Victorian Governments Q&A on Water Fluoridation at:

    The Victorian Health Department's (and World Health Organisation's) position is that the recommendation of 1mg/L is safe and effective as a public health initiative. I fail to see what is the problem with this level of dosing as a typical cup of tea contains 1mg of fluoride, four times the level of what will soon come out of the tap. Should we have a referendum on banning tea?

    As for Fridays letter, quoting Weary Dunlop and Nobel prise winners is well worn logical fallacy of "appeal to authority". Nobel prize winners can be wrong, and the Dental Associations that perhaps millions of dentists around the world belong to are for fluoridation. Being famous or having won awards does not give credibility, empirical, peer reviewed, scientific method should always be the measure of credibility not fame or fortune.

    As for 98% of European countries not having water fluoridation? Europe has not banned water fluoridation. There has been no directive or legislation banning it. In some European countries, water fluoridation is not practical because of very complex water systems without a single central point to add fluoride.

    Switzerland, France, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and Belarus, use fluoridated salt widely. In many parts of Central and South America the use of fluoridated salt is also widespread. Milk fluoridation schemes exist in several countries, including Chile, China, Peru, Thailand and the United Kingdom.

    Fluoride tablets are not recommended for several reasons. Animal experiments have shown that fluoride given once a day is more likely to cause dental fluorosis than the same amount of fluoride given intermittently throughout the day. If you think it should be a personal choice, fair enough, get a water filter that will remove the fluoride and let the rest of us (the majority) have the benefits.

    If you have any (credible) evidence against water fluoridation that hasn't already been thoroughly addressed by the governments Q&A document, I would be glad to have a look and compare it with the available evidence. Please no more straw man arguments and logical fallacies. And if you still believe in some multi-national, multi-departmental, multi-government conspiracy has existed for the last 65years, then no amount of evidence will be able to convince you, as sadly, you have a position based in ideology not reason.

    Any reasonable person I suspect, should be more comfortable placing their trust in an ACCOUNTABLE government health department backed by overwhelming body of frequently reviewed scientific evidence, than the long ago debunked nonsense that you will find on the Internet.

    If you are going to write a letter to the editor, please ensure that your concerns are not tainted with junk science, unfounded conspiracy theory, and logical fallacies. Until then, I think there are far more important maters for this region, than the (thankfully) inevitable introduction of a very important health initiative.

    Des Horwood