@monman12 wrote:
IF"They're not based on absolutely nothing, Martini, there has been enough research done on the subject to make the practice suspect"
Suspected of what IF?, are the WHO, CDC, ADA and others going to advocate a suspect practice?
IF: "It's been shown in other countries that tooth decay is no more prevalent and even in decline after flouridation has ceased."
So IF, show us the scientific case studies that indicate that dental caries are in decline as a result of ceasing water fluoridation
From your C&P (unread links(?) TF:
" in contrast, most European countries have experienced substantial declines in tooth decay without its use, primarily due to the introduction of fluoride toothpaste in the 1970s"
"with many countries having water that is naturally fluoridated to recommended levels and others, such as in Europe, using fluoridated salts as an alternative source of fluoride."
TF: We often wonder why so many diseases that were unheard of 50 years ago are increasingly showing up these days'
We might wonder, then might remember that fluoridation of water has been occurring for 65 years, and there are many areas where the water is, permanently, naturally fluoridated. .
Again I ask: Why would the Australian Dental Association publish this?:-
"Water fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure for reducing dental caries across the population"
Why would the for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the pre-eminent institution in the world dedicated to the prevention of disease, and is a global leader in public health, publish this?:-
"(CDC) has recognised community water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century."
nɥºɾ
Again I ask: Why would the Australian Dental Association publish this?:-
"Water fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure for reducing dental caries across the population"
Why would the for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the pre-eminent institution in the world dedicated to the prevention of disease, and is a global leader in public health, publish this?:-
"(CDC) has recognised community water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century."
You know John, that's something that's been puzzling me also. When I first started this thread I never realised what raging debate it would cause.
Since this morning I've been doing some more reading about it and gone back to Twinkles C&P about it in message 7, from PRNewsire.
I have no previous knowledge of PRNewswire and am bracing myself for derogatory remarks from you about their veracity and credibility.
Be that as it may I've clicked on to the link to DR. PHYLLIS J. MULLENIX, Ph.D. (mentioned by Dr Monteith in his talk, link provided by Ashjoma)
Instead of the whole page I'm just going to C&P some lines here that I feel are relative to this discussion.
The first test Dr. Mullenix was asked to perform at the Forsyth Dental Center was a test related to neurotoxicity of fluoride. The person who asked her to perform this test was Dr. Harold C. Hodge, one of the founders of the Society of Toxicology. Since that time, Dr. Mullenix has conducted additional research related to fluoride including one study which is about to be published. She is considered one of the foremost experts on the neurotoxicity of fluoride compounds.
In fact Dr Mullinex was fired by Forsyth after her paper published. Why?
Some of her findings were:
"We concluded that the rat study flagged potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans. Confident as we were, the data were only one piece of the puzzle, the overall picture was still emerging. Soon thereafter we learned of two epidemiological studies (Fluoride, 1995-1996) from China showing IQ deficits in children over-exposed to fluoride via drinking water or soot from burning coal. A recent review (International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 1994) listed case reports of CNS effects in humans excessively exposed to fluoride, information that spans almost 60 years. A common theme appeared in the reported effects: impaired memory and concentration, lethargy, headache, depression and confusion. The same theme was echoed in once classified reports about workers from the Manhatten Project. In all, our rat data seem to fit a consistent picture."
There's much much more to read there, way too much to copy here in any sort of concise form. The more you read, the more horrifying it gets and the less inclined you are to dismiss anit-fluoridation as the rantings of crackpots and nutters.
So why this this almost fanatical push by the government to fluoridate the drinking water?
It was mentioned that it was a way for aluminium producers like Alcoa to dispose of their byproducts at a profit. And that there were scientists for hire that would find that flouride was safe and indeed beneficial.
So. Are the ADA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also "hired'? Or they just innocent parties in the thrall of Industrial
powers?
I don't know, but I'll certainly do more reading about it. In the meantime, while there is such huge suspicion about it, I'll remain opposed to fluoride in our drinking water.
