There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
Recent Articles
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
(0 comments)
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
(0 comments)
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
(0 comments)
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
(0 comments)
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
(0 comments)
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
(1 comment)
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(5 comments)
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(1 comment)
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
(2 comments)
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
(0 comments)
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
Article Archives
Blog Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
By Joy Warren in the UK (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 10:31:44
It would be better to engage the public in this issue far more evenhandedly that is currently taking place, for example, in Southampton, England. South Central Strategic Health Authority has released in the last 3 months a deluge of poorly-referenced skewed or one-sided 'facts' about water fluoridation in order to persuade the majority of the 200,000 people due to be fluoridated into believing in the 'benefits' of fluoride. And, although only mentioning dental fluorosis in passing in their leaflets and posters, if asked face to face, they still insist that dental fluorosis is a cosmetic manifestation of over-exposure to fluoride. Those UK groups opposed to fluoridation - Hampshire Against Fluoridation, National Pure Water Association, United Kingdom Councils Against Fluoridation, the All Party Parliamentary Group Against Fluoridation and many other local groups (plus Fluoride Action Network and the 2000 health professionals who have signed a statement against fluoridation) - have had to counter SCSHA's 'consultation' by issuing information which is 100% against fluoridation and which, in the main, is well referenced. Since there are no caries-preventing benefits from water fluoridation, they could do nothing other than coming out 100% against the practice. Those opposed to fluoridation, however, acknowledge that fluoride delays caries in young children but only because fluoride delays the growth of the deciduous teeth. They also acknowledge that fluoridated toothpaste and twice-daily toothbrushing accompanied by adequate calcium in the young child’s diet and a reduction in sugar and carbohydrates are the main ways in which tooth decay can be prevented. Living in a hard water area is also beneficial. They are not uncaring about the pain caused by dental caries but do not believe that the health of the majority should suffer for the sake of a very small number of children. And they have enough research evidence to uphold their belief that if fluoride damages the teeth (dental fluorosis), then it also damages bones.
Not all who are against fluoridation belong to "a mishmash of opponents, from rogue scientists and dentists to right wing nuts, some environmental groups, and a loud, ignorant public who couldn't think themselves out of a wet paper bag." Shame on you Ted Mitchell: if a man or woman stands up to be counted, it does not mean that he or she is a rogue scientist or a right wing nut. You'll be saying next that the Suffragettes, the Greenham Common ladies, the little black lady who sat in the front seat of a bus in the US, Gandhi and the US President Elect were or are all nutters. We should all be proud of, and support, those people who oppose the status quo. We should be proud of those who oppose this incredibly unwise ill-health medical intervention which removes choice and which, in the case of England, forces compulsory medication on to millions of people who are not in the target group.
Furthermore, those millions of people (the unwitting 'ignorant' public) would be less ‘ignorant’ if people like Ted Mitchell took the time to explain both sides of the issue to them. Armed with this knowledge, millions of people could then make an informed decision and be made to feel proud that they have taken their part in deciding the outcome. If no-one puts both sides of the issue to them, they will continue in ignorance. Before people vote in a general election, they are exposed to both sides of the political argument. In the same vein, we should not allow ourselves to be fluoridated without first being acquainted with all the facts. But this is precisely what is happening with the current Southampton consultation which would be entirely one-sided if it were not for the opposition of the people who care.
Ted Mitchell may have made up his mind. He should encourage the silent majority the courtesy of acquiring all the facts and deciding for themselves, and not allow himself the patriarchal luxury of deciding for them.
Permalink | Context