Problems with fluoride

The following was a letter to the Editor of the Irish Times dated July 4 2012

Sir, – My two spaniels (Mel and Lou) drink rainwater in preference to tap water containing fluoride.

Animal instinct is worth noting when even the dogs in the street are aware of something unnatural grouped with bromine, chlorine and iodine in our drinking water.

Their teeth, by the way, are in perfect condition! – Yours, etc,

DERMOT CARBERRY,

[Link]

To which I wrote the following letter which was published on the July 5 2012

A chara, – Dermot Carberry (July 4th) brings up the old “problem” of water fluoridation, calling us to take heed of his pet dogs who prefer rainwater to tap water. Stating that his dogs’ teeth are in perfect condition might be a good example of a common saying, “correlation does not imply causation”. Time and time again, metadata analysis of independent experiments have shown that fluoridation is beneficial in preventing tooth decay.

Saying that “animal instinct is worth noting”, I can think of a few animal instincts that dogs have that humans might find less than palatable. – Is mise,

PAUL LAVIN,

[Link]

Every so often the issue of water fluoridation comes into the public forum and it is the same old story. Fluoride causes cancer/autism/insert some more scaremongering here, we shouldn’t have it in our water. As my letter stated a number of independent studies have shown that  fluoride is safe and does prevent tooth decay. How do I know this? Thanks to a little thing called the Cochrane Collaboration.

The Cochrane Collaboration (CC) “…aims to provide compiled scientific evidence to aid well-informed health care decisions. It conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health care interventions and tries to disseminate the results and conclusions derived from them.” [Via wiki] Basically, the CC collects data from randomised controlled trials, the gold standard in scientific experimentation, puts it all together and sees if the data is positive, negative or insufficient to draw a conclusion. What makes this method powerful is it takes data from all studies that fit the criteria of the study, regardless of the conclusions of the individual studies. This means that any bias in a single study can be cancelled out by the other non-biased ones.

The anti-fluoride lobby really gets on my nerves for one major reason, for the most part they use scaremongering rather than discussing the real reason behind their fears, a common tactic. Often the real reason the anti-fluoride lobby is against fluoride in the water comes down to “mass medication”. That is to say objecting to having something put into a food stuffs without the consent of the person consuming it nor offering an alternative. On this issue, I feel that we should talk about this. We should take about with ethics behind such a system, but the anti-fluoride lobby are doing themselves no favours in using unfounded scientific claims to try to get their way in an underhanded manner.

Bottom-line, if you have a problem with something, say it as it is, don’t try to achieve your aim in am underhanded manner.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: