By: zzcharlie17
2/04/2008
8:50 pm Yahoo! Profile:
zzcharlie17 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
What? so Queensland parents give their kids more sugar than other states? (This is the statistical information they are using to validate adding to the flouride in the water-qld has the worst tooth decay and the only state with no flouride)Stop throwing parents in the pool of sharks when it comes to government issues.
In saying that, we do give our kids lollies,sweets,chocolate
and the such and they have perfect teeth, do not have adhd, and at 10 and 7, we don't need to "shut them up" as you say.
Oh and we don't shove them in the face..they take them quite voluntarily. |
|
By: tonegunman1
3/04/2008
8:09 am Yahoo! Profile:
tonegunman1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| When someone says that Queensland has the highest rate of decay then for once I would like to see them asked to show the figures. That is all the figures not just selected statistics. Queensland has better figures in some areas. Some areas of Queensland have much better teeth than say Townsville (fluoridated). The NT has 70% fluoridation and arguably much worse teeth. |
|
By: flissij
3/04/2008
8:43 am Yahoo! Profile:
flissij Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Bring it on!!!
Bring on the flouridation.
In every society we have to cater for the lowest common denominator including those parents who feed thier children too much sugar and do not encourage a regular teeth brushing routine from and early age.
We live in Brisbane now, however I grew up in Coffs Harbour, NSW with flouridated water and have no fillings at 31. I was your average furry toothed kid. As an adult we have a healthy diet and have minimal junk foods and I shepherd my children to brush thier teeth at least once a day (I'm imperfectly human and they're getting more habitual about it). Yet considering all this my 10 year old daughter has 2 fillings. That's good enough evidence for me.
The unsubstantiated insinuations about flouride are frankly insulting.
A wise bonus, in my opinon, would be the back up of flouride in the water.
As humans fall onto a bell curve with most things it is logical that there are some who benefit greatly from flouride and some that are allergic. Do we take strawberries off the supermarket shelves because a handful have an intolerance or reactions to them?? No. It would also be less expensive to provide subsidised water filters for those who are actually (medically proven to be) allergic to flouride than to continue to fork out the $$ for free dental for school age children.
I remember when I first moved to Brisbane in 1988 the chlorine smell and taste in the water was unbearable. My family had a "reverse osmosis" water filter for our drinking/cooking water that we purchased without compensation.
The carefully measured chlorine was there for a reason and a specific purpose.
Same with the flouride.
You'll get used to it. |
|
By: tonegunman1
3/04/2008
9:01 am |
Message deleted. |
|
By: flissij
3/04/2008
9:54 am Yahoo! Profile:
flissij Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
It is not in anyone's interest to fluoridate water to make people sick. Can you say PARANOIA?
FEAR MONGERS are no better than your average Terror Pusher.
Keep the people afraid and you keep them controlled. |
|
By: chuckanoo
3/04/2008
5:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
flissij, you say that when you moved up to Brissie, that the chlorine smell was so bad, that you had a reverse osmosis system installed.
I do hope you realise, that these reverse osmosis filters will actually filter out fluoride.
Therefore, to give give your children (without their consent) fluoridated water, you will need to remove the reverse osmosis filter.
For if you don't, they will be drinking water that will have the fluoride removed from it.
That is, if the State Government is allowed to fluoridate the water supply. |
|
By: tonegunman1
4/04/2008
8:06 am Yahoo! Profile:
tonegunman1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"We live in Brisbane now, however I grew up in Coffs Harbour, NSW with flouridated water and have no fillings at 31."
"I remember when I first moved to Brisbane in 1988"
I fail to see where pointing out that flissij's post is ficticious can be profanity but here it goes again. Oh that's right I implied you were a functionary of Qld
Health. It's easy to see where you could be confused with profanity. Touch the underbelly did I?
Coffs Harbour untill recently (possibly not even currently) has been not fluoridated.
So you moved to Brisbane, also unfluoriodated, at age 11 and you currently have no fillings at 31.
Hardly a triumph of fluoridation but indicative that you don't need fluoridation for good teeth. |
|
By: tonegunman1
4/04/2008
8:34 am Yahoo! Profile:
tonegunman1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Here's something else interesting contained in a patent held by Sepracor that pins fluoride as a cause of peridontal disease and as a result tooth and bone loss. Peridontal disease has also been linked to heart disease.
"It is also known that under certain circumstances sodium fluoride and fluoroaluminates can activate G proteins and thereby induce prostaglandin production in endothelial cells and leukotriene production in platelets, granulocytes and monocytes. The metabolites of arachidonic acid have been implicated as important biochemical mediators of tissue destruction in various inflammatory diseases.
The term periodontal diseases relates to conditions in which the gingiva and underlying alveolar bone are attacked. The condition exists in a number of species of warm blooded animals including humans and canines, and appears at least initially to involve an inflammatory and immunological response to the stimulus of bacterial plaque. Clinically, the advance of the disease involves conversion of chronic gingivitis, involving primarily inflammation of the gingiva, to chronic destructive periodontitis, in which resorption of the alveolar bone, increased mobility of the teeth, and in advanced stages, loss of teeth are observed" |
|
By: tonegunman1
4/04/2008
9:05 am Yahoo! Profile:
tonegunman1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Oh I think I did say "brown shirt for Queensland Health" maybe that's the profanity? |
|
By: flissij
4/04/2008
2:18 pm Yahoo! Profile:
flissij Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| If you did YOUR research you might learn that Coffs Harbour's water is NATURALLY fluoridated. :P |
|
By: chuckanoo
4/04/2008
5:53 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Ok flissij, what type of Natural Fluoridation is it? If it is natural, then it can only be Calcium Fluoride. Which is all natural and safe to drink.
I do know from the wife of the man (now deceased)who actually was asked to investigate the possibility of adding Sodium Fluoride to Coffs Harbour water supply, that after careful and scientific research, That the Coffs Harbour authority decided NOT to add it, due to the potential serious health risks to the residents of Coffs Harbour.
And yet Captain Bligh wants to more poison to our supply. That's just insane! |
|
By: tonegunman1
5/04/2008
12:50 am Yahoo! Profile:
tonegunman1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"If you did YOUR research you might learn that Coffs Harbour's water is NATURALLY fluoridated. :P"
Got no problem with calcium fluoride. But don't make out it's the same thing. By that logic there is no difference between say NaCl and KCl, if you think so then sprinkle some of that on your chips, bon appetite.
Even so Coffs isn't "naturally" fluoridated to 1ppm, not even close.
Do go on though. :C |
|
By: chuckanoo
15/04/2008
4:41 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hello all.
This is the Minister for Health's response to the Question on Notice Dorothy Pratt put to him on 12th March 2008.
Regards
Val Wicks (Electorate Officer)
For Dorothy Pratt MLA
Member for Nanango
Ph 07 4162 1381
Question on Notice
No. 360
Asked on 12 March 2008
MRS PRATT asked the Minister for Health (MR ROBERTSON)-
QUESTION:
With reference to forced fluoridation of Queensland water supplies-
(1) What is the total volume of water expected to be fluoridated each year?
(2) What percentage of this volume is expected to be consumed or benefit teeth?
(3) What is the expected cost per year of fluoridating Queensland water?
(4) What percentage of this total cost will be consumed and benefit teeth?
(5) Is it true Queensland Health staff changed tooth decay data used in the decision to
force fluoridation?
(6) Is it true, as Freedom of Information reportedly shows, that a senior Oral Health
advisor to the Minister said in 2006 there are no scientific studies to prove water
fluoridation is safe?
(7) Is it true data used by Queensland Government to formulate this policy was based on
baby teeth only and not on data from permanent teeth?
(8) Is it true the data from permanent teeth in children aged 6 to 12 years old shows on
average only a tiny fraction of a tooth difference in decay rates? |
|
By: chuckanoo
15/04/2008
4:43 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
ANSWER
(1) Approximately 1,000,000 mega litres of water are expected to be fluoridated each
year.
(2) Around 1% of water is estimated to be used for drinking purposes.
(3) The expected cost per year of fluoridating Queensland water will be approximately $5
million. This includes labour, fluoridation additive and quality monitoring costs.
(4) Benefit to teeth from fluoridated water can be achieved through drinking the water,
rinsing with water, cooking and food production which includes water. Therefore, the
actual percentage of cost which will benefit teeth is difficult to determine. The cost of
providing fluoride to 90% of Queenslanders will be less than $1.50 per head of
population per year.
(5) No. Queensland Health has only used publicly reported data by the Australian Child
Dental Health Study and Brisbane/Townsville fluoridation study for reporting on child
oral health in Queensland. Tooth decay is a common term used to describe tooth
decay prevalence measures which can be measured at either the surface or tooth level.
(6) The Member has taken this statement completely out of context.
Officers of my Department acknowledge that it is scientifically impossible to design
studies which irrefutably prove the safety of any substance, including fluoride and all
other foodstuffs, products, compounds and additives which people routinely consume.
Rather, scientific studies into the safety of substances can only observe (or not
observe) evidence of harm associated with use of the substance.
More than 60 years of fluoridation around the world and hundreds of rigorous
scientific studies have revealed no evidence that fluoride is harmful. On this basis,
scientific and medical experts from my Departments have concluded that fluoridation
is a safe and appropriate means of improving the oral health of Queenslanders. |
|
By: chuckanoo
15/04/2008
4:44 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
(7) No. Data relating to both baby (deciduous) and permanent teeth have been considered
in formulation of this policy. However, the impact of fluoridation on tooth decay is
more evident in six year old children (predominantly deciduous teeth) compared to 12
year olds (a mixture of deciduous and permanent teeth) because the teeth have had a
longer period of exposure to factors that promote tooth decay (such as poor diet and
poor oral hygiene), and to fluoride, which protects against tooth decay.
Many sources of data about tooth decay, including the Australian Child Dental Health
Study and the 1996 Brisbane/Townsville fluoride study were used. The Australian
Child Dental Health Study reports annually on oral health data which is collected
through school dental services. The 1996 Brisbane/Townsville study compared tooth
decay experience of children from fluoridated Townsville compared to nonfluoridated
Brisbane. The exposure of each child to fluoridated water was recorded by
parents and service delivery was standardised across the State.
By the age of two, most of a child's 20 baby teeth have erupted. By six years of age all
deciduous teeth have been exposed to about four years of tooth decay risk and fluoride
benefit if available. This is why deciduous teeth data are used most often for young
age groups. At age six, many children have no permanent teeth yet.
At age 12, a number of healthy permanent teeth are erupting and some potentially
diseased deciduous teeth are being lost. This is why little tooth decay prevalence is
recorded in either permanent or baby teeth for 12 year olds. Because there is little
evidence of tooth decay in many 12 year olds, it is difficult to discern a statistically
significant difference in the rates of tooth decay relating to fluoride at this age.
While all data were considered, these interpretive limitations have been taken into
account. |
|
By: chuckanoo
15/04/2008
4:45 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
(8) The level of tooth difference in permanent teeth decay rates varies between studies.
The 1996 Townsville/Brisbane study (study conducted in 1991-92 but published in
1996) shows that on average tooth decay in permanent teeth for 12 year old children
was 0.94 decayed, missing or filled surfaces in Townsville compared to 1.80 decayed,
missing or filled surfaces in Brisbane. This equates to approximately 80 less tooth
surfaces with decay in every 100 children in Townsville. While the decay experience
in permanent teeth is low between the ages of 6-12 due to very few permanent teeth
being present and the short period of time teeth have been in the mouth, there was a
48% difference in the mean between Townsville and Brisbane.
Despite there being evidence of difference in permanent teeth data, the use of
permanent teeth data for fluoridation outcomes at six years of age is inappropriate
because children at age six have none or very few permanent teeth. Even by the age of
12 their permanent teeth have had little time to be exposed to the dietary and hygiene
risk factors to produce visible tooth decay.
Tooth decay prevalence differences in permanent teeth begin to be evident from
around 15 years of age. The Brisbane/Townsville study did not collect information on
15 year olds. While the Child Dental Health Survey does collect information on 15
year olds, the data was not used to report on differences between fluoridated and nonfluoridated
areas as the survey does not collect information on fluoride exposure and
there were a number of other biases in the data.
This sound like a Government that has no idea what they are dealing with! |
|
By: chuckanoo
15/04/2008
4:57 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Those pushing Fluoridated water upon us is using 'the Big Lie' technique. Just sound like you know what you're talking about-- as if you're citing 'real' facts. Talk very fast. Weave your lies into a shape of a conspiracy (in this case, dental) theory and repeat your assertions over and over again. Those that want an excuse to hate or blame (especially to blame others for THEIR OWN lack of dental care)- those with big but weak egos - will leap at simple, neat solutions(I.E: poison our water supplies with Sodium Fluoride).
Hitler did it brilliantly. So did the Mystic of Leningrad. So too does Anna (Captain) Bligh. |
|
By: chuckanoo
22/04/2008
10:01 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
News just in from Fluoride Action Network http://fluoridealert.org/
Breaking: 4-17-09 - NEBRASKA LEGISLATURE OVERRIDES GOVERNOR'S VETO OF MANDATORY FLUORIDATION BILL. Earlier that same day, the Nebraska Governor vetoed the mandatory fluoridation bill calling it an unfunded mandate. http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=8181142&nav =menu606_2_4
Except for the date being wrong, We need to 'Veto' our own Fluoridation bill that Captain Bligh has put in place. |
|
By: chuckanoo
26/04/2008
9:03 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
NORTHWEST NEWSWEEK - TOP STORY (http://www.tbtv.com/NWNe ws-Story.aspx?cid=106869)
Dryden says no to fluoride in byelection
TB News Source
Web Posted: 4/22/2008 12:14:19 PM
Voters in Dryden have overwhelmingly rejected the idea of fluoridating their public water supply with 87 per cent voting no in Monday night's byelection.
This brings an end to a debate that was a hot topic in the community for more than a year.
The question was first posed to residents in Dryden in the last municipal election in November 2006. At that time, 56 per cent of those who voted were in favour of adding the chemical to the city's water supply.
A petition containing more than ten per cent of the electorate soon followed reviving the debate and forcing council to put the question back to the public, one more time.
Council had previously set aside $300,000 to add fluoride to the city's water and a decision on what to do with those funds will be discussed at an upcoming Dryden council meeting.
DRYDEN, ONTARIO, CANADA. |
|
By: chuckanoo
5/05/2008
12:15 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Belgium To Ban Fluoride Tablets, Gum, But Not Toothpaste
7-31-2
BRUSSELS (Xinhua via COMTEX) -- Belgium will ban the sale of tablets and chewing gum which contain fluoride elements because of the risk that they might cause a brittle bone condition, a Health Ministry spokesman said Tuesday.
But the ban will not include toothpaste with fluoride, which protects teeth from decay, Tom Ruts said.
The move is believed to be the first such ban in the 15-nation European Union (EU), and may spark renewed debate about the safety of fluoride, which some countries add to public drinking water supplies as a means of improving dental health.
The ban will probably come into force by late August, Ruts said.
Belgian Health Minister Magda Aelvoet also made comments about the plan in the latest issue of Belgium's weekly magazine, Humo.
Aelvoet told the magazine she hoped her EU partners would follow the example. In these cases, a harmonization within the European Union is of course desirable but I can't always wait until the European Union is ready, she was quoted as saying.
We will however communicate our official decision to the other European member states in the hope that they will follow us swiftly, said the minister.
Fluoride supplements -- such as fluoride tablets and fluoride chewing gum -- are promoted by dentists to fight dental caries. They have been sold in Belgium without a doctor's prescription.
The ministry made the decision after the results of a study commissioned by an advisory board found that excessive use of fluoride products could cause fluoride poisoning, damage the nervous system and foster osteoporosis, where bones become weak and fragile, said the spokesman.
Copyright 2002 XINHUA NEWS AGENCY.
This information is a bit old, but still relevant. |
|
By: bored.bored74
5/05/2008
2:21 am Yahoo! Profile:
bored.bored74 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
WAs the water in Brisbane flouridated in the 50's, 60's, 70's or 80's?? DOES ANYONE KNOW ...My mum believes it was.
My two eldest kids teeth are a disgrace, the dentist suggested flouride tablets which made no difference, their teeth are brushed daily and they have not been brought up on soft drinks. So what caused this?? well it was using bottles for too long, not one pregnancy/parenting book or dentist/doctor/nurse warned me of the dangers of using a bottle to feed my children milk. I even avoided using dummies to make sure that their teeth wouldn't be affected.
I am very upset that a person would assume that a parent is being negligent because their child shows signs of TOOTH decay.
Even when I took the children to a dentist to try and have something done about it when I FIRST NOTICED IT the dentist said to leave them as a filling would just break off and now 50% more of their front teeth have rotted away. |
|
By: stealth666@y7mail.com
6/05/2008
6:38 pm Yahoo! Profile:
stealth666@y7mail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| There are always going to be the pros and cons re: the dabate over any subject in relation to our health and wellbeing. At the end of the day...........who cares! When our number is up, it's up. We all have to meet our making in some way and unfortunately some have drawn the short straw more so than others. You can't fight fate but you can continue fighting each other over the inevitable. |
|
By: nessa_sarily_so
6/05/2008
7:11 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nessa_sarily_so Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| If they have to drink recycled water they better put some kind of germ killing agent in it. |
|
By: chuckanoo
8/05/2008
8:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
BEN FRANKLIN STATION, BOX 7672, WASHINGTON D.C. 20044 - PHONE 202-566-2788
INTERNET http://www.nteu280.org E MAIL Hirzy.John@epa.gov
2002 STATEMENT OF CONCERN ABOUT FLUORIDE
NTEU Chapter 280 and its individual Executive Board members have signed on to the following Statement of Concern about the science of fluoridation. The goal is to stimulate a Congressional hearing on this national policy, which has not been aired before Congress and the public since 1978. Since 1978, a wealth of peer reviewed literature has been published on the carcinogenic, genotoxic and neurotoxic effects of fluoride, as well as on the efficacy of fluoridation. We believe that a full, open debate on the merits of the science underpinning fluoridation - and EPA's drinking water standards - is long overdue. |
|
By: chuckanoo
8/05/2008
8:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
The following has been shortened to fit.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/yarmouth/news/x64700057 2/Yarmouth-re-elects-Groskopf-says-no-to-override- fluoride
Yarmouth re-elects Groskopf, says no to override, fluoride
By John Basile
Tue May 06, 2008, 11:13 PM EDT
Question 6, calling for the fluoridation of Yarmouth's water, failed by a wide margin. 1,599 voted yes, while 4,891 voted no. |
|
