PDA

View Full Version : Flouride



learie
11-Nov-03, 21:40
I have not seen any posts relating to the Scottish Executive's plans to add flouride to the public drinking water. If anyone is in any doubt as to how dangerous a precedent this might set they should point their browser to

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

where any amount of information on the subject might be found.

I have emailed my MSP to record my opposition to this mass administration of medication to myself and the rest of society without explicit permission. I suggest you do so too - or who knows what other medical treatment might be administered without consent.

Anonymous
12-Nov-03, 12:11
Not much point in a topic like this is there, no one will believe you until they've seen it on TV :evil

Seriously, I do agree, mass medication is just another area of control and responsabiliity that society is going to give to the government without question. I don't understand why government has to legislate on matters we didn't ask them to.

mike.mckenzie
12-Nov-03, 14:58
Yeah, add the "fluoride" to all the drugs the spray from aeroplanes to control us! Jetstreams my eye.

George Brims
12-Nov-03, 21:28
Just a few FACTS to add to the emotional drivel spoken on this issue. Fluoride is not a drug, it is a naturally ocurring chemical (a salt) found in the drinking water in some areas, the amount varying depending on the local geology. It was observed back in the1950s that people had stronger teeth with less decay in areas where the fluoride level was higher. The simple addition of a small amount to drinking water thus improves public health. Where the naturally occuring level is too high some discoloration of the tooth enamel occurs, so it's easy to figure out how much is too much (that is how the tooth decay/fluoride connection was first discovered in the US). It just so happens they won't have to add much in Caithness because the natural level is actually adequate. So you can stop complaining, it's in there already!

The ONLY argument against addition of fluoride to drinking water is the "thin end of the wedge, what will they do next'" issue. Personally it doesn't bother me. I happen to take the view (desperately out of fashion now I fear) that it's the government's JOB to be looking after people's welfare.

Oh, and MIke, just wrap your head in aluminium foil, this will not only protect you from those chemicals sprayed from planes, but also keep out the cellphone radiation and stop those annoying voices from the aliens.

mike.mckenzie
13-Nov-03, 11:48
They're not aliens, they're the subterranean ruling classes who communicate telepathically. Only when they come closer to the surface can you pick up their brain waves - the "voices in yor head"

Jimmy Hendrix, JFK and Diana all live down there.

And don't start me on the lizard people!

Anonymous
13-Nov-03, 11:50
Back in the 1950's the cavemen were still advertising fags on TV and telling us it was good for you, so anything observed from a health perspective back then should be regarded with contempt. Much as many of the things they try to tell us today should be.

If, George, you feel that you are not responsible enough to make a decision on a simple issue like fluoride, then perhaps you need to be in an environment where you dont make any of those types of judgements for yourself, like a nursing home for example. I for one will be happy to continue using toothpaste with fluoride.

Ever since they dragged us down to the european standard of water treatment, our tapwater has become virtually impossible to drink with the savage levels of chlorine, trust me, the water board have previously pronounced my water undrinkable due to the high chemical content. If you think I want to have another "tasteless" chemical added to my water then you are sorely mistaken.

And if you want it from a purely financial perspective, isn't our water now expensive enough without them adding more cost to the process. Don't forget that your water is no longer provided by GB & Co but rather by FatCats inc. so fluoridation isn't going to be free.

mike.mckenzie
13-Nov-03, 12:09
Seriously? Undrinkable?! Wow, I always remember the tapwater to taste really nice up in Wick, or maybe I just enjoy the hight chemical content.

Seriously though, I would like to be able to choose which, if any, chemicals are ingested by myself, I think that decision is the individual's prerogative. We can choose what goes into our bodies with products bought from a supermarket by looking at the compulsory ingredients and contents on the packaging, so why not drinking water also?

JAWS
13-Nov-03, 12:29
Fluoride is also a cumulative poison which, once in the body, like mercury, does not go away. The more you take, the more remains in your body. In sufficient quantities it can kill.
If the natural level in Caithness is already "adequate" then why the need to add any at all.
The only disease that Fluridisation will cure is that suffered by all Governments and Health Authorities, it's starts as the "Must appear to be doing something syndrome".
This often developes into it's more serious stage. the "We know best syndrome" to which, unfortunately, there is no known cure.
In it's final stages this disease presents itself in it's most arrogant form, "If you don't accept everything we say then you are just stupid and emotional. Lie down and do as you are told by people who know better".

In 'hard water' areas it has been observed that heart disease is less prevelant than in 'soft water' areas, why are there no additives being put in water to correct this problem.
Radon gas is a naturally occurring chemical but, in sufficient quantities, it kills.
In certain areas of Britain the naturally occurring levels are well above what is now considered 'safe'.
Government action? Well, when did you hear of any!
All that's natural is not necessarilly safe or good for you!

Surely it's the governments job to provide the means whereby people can look after their own welfare, after that it should be the individual's choice as to the use they make of it. The government provides a Health Service, but it's my choice as to the extent I make use of it.

The time should be long past when governments are so arrogant as to treat the population as 'ignorant peasants' who need a 'lord and master' to tell them what's good for them.

I'm sorry to say it, but I'm old fashioned enough to believe that such attitudes should have disappeared at the same time as the 'divine right of kings'.

FairyFi
13-Nov-03, 17:07
Hmmm The fluoride things seem silly! my Mum told me that when i was a baby fluoride tablets/drops were very strongly recommended for all the kids but she didnt want me to have them as she didnt think i would need them.(Good dental hygene, brushing etc) The dentist and doctor people made a huge fuss about this, and wernt very happy bunnys to say the least, but It turned out that by the time i was in about primary 7 all the kids who had taken these drops had fillings and stuff, while i hadnt taken these tablets and didnt have (and still dont have) a single filling.
The lesson to learn ... We dont need fluoride, we just need to brush our teeth regularly and eat fairly sensibly at sensible times!! :)
Plus the water up here is so nice, why ruin it by filling it full of chemicals and crap?

Wounded Soldier
13-Nov-03, 18:29
God this is terrible!

They take away our NHS dentist up here and add fluoride as a replacement! haha

Whatever next, knock caithness general down an put bandages an plasters in our cornflakes! :eyes

lol

George Brims
13-Nov-03, 21:16
Niall, I find your comparison between a well-meaning attempt to improve public health, and the profit-motivated lying of the tobacco induistry quite despicable. And just on a point of accuracy, the tobacco industry propaganda effort came a little later than the 1950s, and goes on even now. Two or three days ago the chairman of Imperial Tobacco said (under oath, in court!) he still doesn't believe smoking is unhealthy. In any case, just because fluoridation is based on a discovery from the 1950s is no reason to distrust it.

I do feel responsible for making a decision on fluoride. My decision is I'm perfectly happy to have the appropriate amount of it added to my drinking water. And the reason I'm happy to have that is that I am a scientist and make decisions on a rational scientific basis, and have weighed the evidence. Not the evidence on crank web sites, but the evidence accumulated by the scientific community. I am not yet so old and decrepit I need to have my decisions made for me in a nursing home (however my mum is and in her prime she would have skelped your lug for that crack Niall).

Fluoridation of tap water is a harmless addition that improves the resistance of tooth enamel to decay. That doesn't mean it's going to protect you against decay if you live on sweeties and don't brush your teeth. I would also remind Jaws that the water itself, in sufficient quantities, can kill. Almost anything will.

JAWS
14-Nov-03, 00:36
Certainly large quantities of water taken at once can kill, and not just by drowning. But water is not retained forever in the body as is fluoride.

Many decisions are made on a rational scientific basis.
So why can I not get DDT, after all it was declaired safe on a 'rational scientific basis'.
So was Thalidamide, so it couldn't possibly had caused birth defects, the scientists said so. It had nothing to do with babies with no arms and no legs.
I wonder what happened to Electro-convulsive Therapy, I don't appear to have heard much about it's use lately.
All these, and many more, were used for many years, decades in some cases. When things started to go wrong we were assured that there was no case to answer and that we were just too stupid to understand, better minds than ours had declaired them safe.

I won't go into governments, scientists and BSE, people were just being silly and emotional.
Whilst on the subject the New Scientist reports that by returning to eating cattle over 30 months old would lead to less than 2 deaths over the next 60 years.
Which is correct, this scientific evidence, or the scientific evidence which predicted over 10 million deaths.
Two deaths, 10 million deaths, lets not quibble over minor details.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I won't make you swallow mine so please don't make me swallow yours, even if it might be good for my teeth.

George Brims
14-Nov-03, 01:11
I knew we would get to Thalidomide eventually...

Jaws, don't confuse commerce, politics and science, but do realise that all three get entangled from time to time, or more like all the time.

The history of Thalidomide is an interesting blend of the three. When Penicillin was first developed, it wasn't made synthetically but extracted from the mould in which it was first discovered. In order to produce a lot of it you needed skill with fermentation techniques, so Distiller's Company got into the drug business, with the encouragement of the goverment. They later developed thalidomide, and were allowed to put it on the market with, it was later realised, too little testing. Remember that science is continually developing - the link between nervous system activity in a drug, and possible damage to a developing foetus, wasn't as clearly understood then. Distillers were also very influential and wealthy, which didn't help the situation.

The reason you CAN'T buy DDT is that it was BANNED on a "rational scientific basis".

Thalidomide was never tested for causing birth defects befoire its introduction. Nowadays any new drug is.

Unfortunately ECT is still with us. It's still used A LOT around the world. My personal opinion is that it is such a crude and extreme thing to do to a person's brain that it can't be any use, yet there is SOME evidence that it helps some people. In science, especially anything to do with the brain and the mind, nothing is ever totally black and white.

The BSE fiasco was politics, pure and simple, with a large dose of commerce thrown in. The science got thrown out with the bathwater until it was too late. Now as to the extreme predctions of two vs 10 million deaths? Well someone better keep refining the estimates until they converge. I doubt if either figure is corect.

Everything is a balance of risks - I always wear my car seatbelt but I knew a person who avoided being killed because he wasn't wearing one. You read all the time of people being killed in "million to one" accidents.

JAWS
14-Nov-03, 03:23
Whilst I cannot confirm the 10 million figure which is quite possibly due to my faulty memory I suggest you look at
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/bse/bse.jsp?id=ns99993839 to see where the 'less than 2 deaths' comes from.

Don't confuse commerce, politics and science! But they are entangled, and nowhere is commerce more prevelant than in science. Tell a scientist that his funding is going to cease because his research is going nowhere and I will guarantee that some line of reasearch, previously missed, will appear from nowhere so the money still flows.

The details as to why chemicals, drugs etc. might be defective in their intended use is not the point.
What is relevant is that with both Thalidamide and DDT it was only when the scientific community in general could no longer defend the position they had taken with both that they were dragged 'kicking and screaming' into the light and had to back-track.
DDT was in use and scientifically supported long after it had become obvious to all but the most dedicated ostrich that something was seriously wrong.
And don't blame 'greedy commercial interests' for either, once there was even the slightest serious doubt about either, scientists could well have commenced testing to discover the facts without any outside prompting, (mind you, that would have meant without pots of funding.) and the all caring government could have stopped their use until the results were confirmed or disproved.

I have no doubt that ECT is still used and believed in around the world, so are witch doctors and voodoo, but for every person who gets help how many are permanently damaged.

The BSE 'crisis' was a fiasco. Yes it was government. Yes it was commerce. But an awfull lot of scientists jumped on the gravy train with wild scare stories to attract attention to themselves and their research. Of course, obtaining government funding must have been the last thing on their mind.

With regard tko seatbelts, I too always wear mine, but if I choose to disregard the law I am at liberty to do so. I have the right to be stupid if I wish and run the risk of being seriously injured or of seriously upseting the forces of law and order, but I have no right to force anyone else to do the same.

Yes everything is a balance of risks but I am not so arrogant as to assume that I have the right to instruct others as to what risks they can or cannot take. All I ask is that the same courtesy is extended to me.

I must confess that one one point my education is seriously lacking. When I go to hospital with some life threatening affliction the doctor must tell me what medical options are open to me, what the outcome of each might be and my chances of recovery. Only when these things have been presented to me and my consent has been given can the medical staff carry out any necessary proceedure.

Sadly I was in a most unfortunate state of ignorance, I simply didn't understand that tooth decay was more serious than death.

Anonymous
14-Nov-03, 12:49
First off, cant believe I missed this 1 first time round:


Fluoride is not a drug, it is a naturally ocurring chemical (a salt)
By this definition, cannabis is not a drug, its a natrually ocurring plant (a weed)...
By this definition, heroin is not a drug, its the extract of a natrually occuring plant...

nuff said...

Back to the point. My point is this, I wish to retain my ability to choose

Thats it, if they put fluoride in the water, I can no longer choose to have it or not. As far as it being in our water already, I dont think so. If we were to receive everything thats in our water already, ie, the state its in when it falls from the sky, we'd all be better off. Long term ingestion of chlorine causes all kinds of nasty cancers, do I have a choice in that, no. Long term ingestion of fluoride causes all kinds of other nasties and I would like to retain my ability to choose not to add to my already sufficient fluoride intake (toothpaste).

The other side of the argument is that it will help children develop stronger teeth etc.

What children are we talking about here?

Mabee the child of the fifties that drinks 8 pints of tapwater a day and has "growed up all big and strong" but not however the child of the ninties or 21st century, fizzy juice and bottled water is all they get. Many people I know (who can afford to) dont drink any tap water as its no longer palettable, so is the government going to force bottled water manufacturers to add fluoride to their water recipies? Doubt it, so once again the ability to choose is only allowed for those who can afford to choose. Its like the MMR jab. Why not have the choice of three separate jabs instead of one thats under question? Simple, money. Not our money, their money, their next election promise.

Plus, if we let them add more junk to our water, what will be next, lithium? Everyone all nice and calm, no more trouble from the tapwater drinkers? I've heard talk of additions of birth control, growth hormones, immunisations, where would it all end? You can say that these things are crazy. But back in the heavy smoking 50's, did they feed sheep's brains to cows? no they did not. So mabee something to be said about the lack of evil fat cats in that era eh?

Its all about choice and the abilty to choose. Its a lot like building a web site, the less choice you give your visitors, the less can go wrong, however, unlike the people and the government, we started with no choices and added many, where the people started with all the choices and the government is determined to take as many of them away as it can, to make life simpler for themselves. What areas of life are still sacred? Untouced by government control and litigation? Not many. Every year they encroach on your private life a little more and because its little by little no one complains and because no one complains they inch in a little closer. If you give, they will push. Personally I think its time to start pushing back.

So they say they can control the quality of people's teeth by adding fluoride to our drinking water. Why not just teach kids to brush their teeth properly? We had a special class for this once a week in primary school, where we'd all be dragged off to sit and brush our teeth in the prescribed manner for about 20 minutes (it seemed :) ) Why not reinstate this? Why not give out free fluoride suppliments like they do condoms? For the moment we still have a choice on birth control.

Wounded Soldier has pretty much hit the nail on the head (bandages in the post). Much cheapness. The usual story from our developing capitalist society, take away the BEST or ANY option and replace it with the CHEAPEST one. Stop spending money on public services, why would we want our tax dollahs spent on services, how silly, we should have another war instead.

George Brims
15-Nov-03, 00:02
Frankly this debate is becoming pitiful. It is becoming riddled with childish behaviour that would put people in big trouble with the moderator in any high school debating competition. A far from complete list:

Mis-stating the other person's positon.
Example: Niall wrote "If, George, you feel that you are not responsible enough to make a decision on a simple issue like fluoride..." Exaoctly the opposite of my position. I feel I have more than enough knowledge to make that decision. I have firmly stated I prefer my water to have fluoride.
Example:I wrote "Fluoride is not a drug, it is a naturally ocurring chemical (a salt)"
Niall wrote: "By this definition, cannabis is not a drug, its a naturally ocurring plant (a weed)...
By this definition, heroin is not a drug, its the extract of a naturally occuring plant... "
Where did I ever state that fluoride is not a drug BECAUSE it is naturally occurring? Almost all the drugs in commercial use are or derive from or are similar to something naturally occurring. That doesn't make fluoride in water or the salt in your porridge a drug, just because they are naturally occurring too. They are salts.

Ad hominem argument (attacking the person instead of addressing issues).
Example: Niall wrote "...perhaps you need to be in an environment where you dont make any of those types of judgements for yourself, like a nursing home for example."

Repeatedly arguing a point already conceded.
Example: I wrote in my first post "The ONLY argument against addition of fluoride to drinking water is the "thin end of the wedge, what will they do next'" issue." I agree that is a significant argument against fluoridation.

I am very sad today. I entered this discussion to add as I said some FACTS to an emotional issue. I thought Caithness.org was a haven from the wasteland of petulance and arrogance that characterizes much of the internet, a civilized site reflecting its civilized homeland. But I see I was mistaken. Next time I won't bother.

JAWS
15-Nov-03, 01:43
And now we come down to the final considered scientific argument, if in doubt call any opinion other than mine, 'pitiful', 'ill thought out', 'lacking in knowledge', 'not properly re-searched', 'emotional', etc., etc....

"Mis-stating the other persons position"? If you believe you have enough knowledge to make the decision to have fluoride in your water then the answer is simple, draw a glass of water, add the correct amount of fluoride and drink.
I for one would not wish to prevent you from making that decision.

Please do not "mis-state" the position of others that they should have that choice also.
If you wish to take fluoride, fine. If others do not then that should be their choice.

"Attacking the other persons position"?
'Niall, I find your comparison between a well-meaning attempt to improve public health, and the profit-motivated lying of the tobacco induistry quite despicable.'
Exactly!

And please, do not bother to quote Latin at us. An attempt was made to make me learn Latin, once I realised that the only advantage that it would give me was that without it I could never be honoured enough to accepted by Oxford or Cambridge I treated it as I did all such elitist things, I consigned it to the dustbin of that part of history which had become useless to all except those who wish to translate it into a modern, useful language.

"Repeatedly arguing a point already conceded." But where is the answer to 'What will they do next?'

I also am 'very sad' to have to add some FACTS to an emotional issue -
"Severance of the third and forth vertibrae as a result of judicial hanging!"
Fact? Yes.
Scientifically provable? Yes.
Emotional? Yes.
But does that make it right?

"Petulance and Arrogance"? Only childish people take the attitude 'If I can't win I'll take my ball home so nobody can play!'

To return to the main point.
Should children be given Fluoride if it prevents tooth decay without having side effects - Yes.
Should there be freedom of choice - Yes.
Enforced medication - Not in my universe, please.
Surely in this day and age a way for fluoride to be made available to the population cannot be too difficult to be worked out other than by 'forced feeding'.
Perhaps a prescription for 12 months free supply would be an answer, at least it would give people freedom of choice.

Colin Manson
15-Nov-03, 02:40
From your first post George... (bold parts highlighted by me)


Just a few FACTS to add to the emotional drivel spoken on this issue.



It just so happens they won't have to add much in Caithness because the natural level is actually adequate. So you can stop complaining, it's in there already!
From the most recent post...


Frankly this debate is becoming pitiful. It is becoming riddled with childish behaviour that would put people in big trouble with the moderator in any high school debating competition.

Looks to me like you would be the first person to get into trouble under your rules. "He that throws the first punch loses the fight!"




I am very sad today. I entered this discussion to add as I said some FACTS to an emotional issue. I thought Caithness.org was a haven from the wasteland of petulance and arrogance that characterizes much of the internet, a civilized site reflecting its civilized homeland. But I see I was mistaken. Next time I won't bother.

Well you entered the discussion with an attitude that upset people (petulance and arrogance?) Maybe much of the internet suffers from the same thing because people don't pay enough attention to their own posts and it is so easy for posts to get misconstrued.

Colin Manson
Admin

Anonymous
15-Nov-03, 10:54
I don't really know much about this subject but i can say that when i was little my mum gave me little orange flouride tablets as instructed by my dentist and now i've gotta mouth full of fillings and a couple of crowns, i have to go to the dentist at least 3 or 4 times a year cos my teeth are so weak. In comparison she didn't give them to my little brother and he hasn't got one filling! Also there are a few of my friends who got the same tablets and they are just like me - traipsing off to the dentist, always needing repairs done - the dentists are raking it in!

It could be due to the fact that i eats lots of sweeties and drink fizzy juice but i brush my teeth twice a day and always have done, my brother also eats lots of sweets and he doesn't brush his teeth as often as i do(he's at that age where he has to be told/forced to do everything!)

There's no way i want any more flouride that's for sure!

Maybe it was all premeditated - the dentist advised everyone to take these tablets cos they knew it'd keep them in business for years to come. . . . . . . . . . . . :evil LOL

gleeber
15-Nov-03, 11:59
Why dont the scientists add fluoride to chocolate and fizzy drinks?

JAWS
15-Nov-03, 14:44
Gleeber, you're introducing common sense, stop it immediately - It Might Be Catching!!!

jjc
15-Nov-03, 16:22
Why dont the scientists add fluoride to chocolate and fizzy drinks?
If I had to hazard a guess I suppose it could be one of two reasons.

a) The government has no say over the ingredients in products turned out by Cadbury Schweppes/Mars/Pepsico/Nestle/etc other than to ensure that they are safe to consume.

b) Despite what JAWS might think, putting Fluoride into sugary sweets and fizzy drinks in order to protect teeth really doesn't make that much sense. It would be like giving everybody a gun and a pack of bullets, but making sure they attend a first-aid course before they are allowed to shoot anybody.

gleeber
15-Nov-03, 16:27
This has been an interesting thread. I was indifferent to the introduction of fluoride into our water but this thread has at least challenged me to think about it.
George's scientific argument is based on objective facts.
Niall and Jaws present a moral argument.
Im swayed by Jaws when he said
"Enforced medication - Not in my universe, please"
This is no reflection on George but science does tend to grab the high moral ground, when in actual fact, the facts dont always produce the best way forward for mankind.
Im glead there are people who take enough interest in a controversial subject to challenge the rest of us to think about it.

rich
15-Nov-03, 16:45
I am in favour of a public health policy that has teeth. Therefore I have to line up with Dr. Brims on this issue. The anti-fluoride crowd sound like the right wing evangelical paranoids that infest the USA. I am currently experiencing them first hand having driven via the Appalachians down here to the southern tip of Florida. American religion minus the gospel music (too black!) what a fate...
I have one word for you anti-fluoride zealots: DRAINS.
It has been calculated that sanitary engineering did more to improve the health of the British people than any amount of medical breakthroughs. That of course gave every family in the land clean drinking water and eradicated cholera in the UK.
In France the addition of a simple mineral to table salt virtually eradicated a dreadful condition called cretinism. (Honore de Balzac wrote a novel on the subject called The Country Doctor.)
Can anyone cite a single example of a public health disaster involving regulation of water supplies anywhere????
So adding fluoride to arrest dental decay in the British - a nation rightly noted for rotten teeth (see any pictorial anthology of British Rock stars from the 60s and 70s) is well within the limits of what a pro-active public health system should be doing.
Reading some of the comments on this string I am reminded of Dr. Strangelove and the general played by Sterling Hayden who was convinced that the commies were interfering with his precious bodily fluids.
I expected to find that mentality alive and well among Ozarc hillbillies - and I have not been disappointed in that respect having savoured their radio stations - but I am a little disappointed to find this anti-public health posturing a reality of life in Caithness.
It is with some misgivings that I will twiddle my radio dial next time I cross the Ord.....

rich
15-Nov-03, 17:00
http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm
By the way, let me say that the above site is a masterpiece of mendacity and panic.

rich
15-Nov-03, 17:05
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html

This is indespensible for folk caught up in these great paranoid health scares that rattle around the internet like a high wind in the slates of an ill constructed barn.
If the above doesn't work just google using quackwatch as your key phrase.
Now I am off to eat sea food. Talking of paranoia why does all seafood south of the Mason Dixon line come wrapped in batter...???

JAWS
15-Nov-03, 19:32
Rich, Before you get on your high horse, make sure you are not riding an ass.

And you think that we are paranoid extremists! Since when has freedom of choice fallen into that category?

Oops! Sorry, have to go - the Federal Government Agents are creeping round outside!!!
I think they have some kind of cloaking device because I can't see them, but I know they are pointing poison rays at my brain. They've got everybody else but I won't let them get me!!!!

Have a nice day Rich.

Mr Ben
15-Nov-03, 20:50
Rich,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1583254.stm : high cholirne levels

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1298810.stm : water bug cryptosporidiosis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/956139.stm : creosote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/455871.stm : 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphate "Health Poisoning disaster 'caused brain damage'"

You think we are paranoid? Well I can't say that I'd trust anyone to add a known toxin to my water. Maybe you don't realise the situation because you don't live here, I think it's pretty clear what the 'local' opinion is. I am a little disappointed to find this anti-human rights posturing on this forum.

Ben

rich
17-Nov-03, 17:07
Thank you, Mr. Ben for making my point so succintly.
You have cited examples of public water supplies becoming polluted. In each case the matter was swiftly corrected and the local media were alerted to spread the world to the general public.
This is the whole point of having a water supply run by publicly accountable people!
The mere act of placing a utility in public hands does not guarantee its pristine nature.
But what public ownership does do is provide the means on maintaining standards.
Mr. Ben where do you get your water? Are you out there on the Cassiemire filling water bottles from the ditches? Perhaps you have tapped in to your local aquifer? I'd really like to know and if so what guaranteee do you have that your source is pollution free?

JAWS
17-Nov-03, 17:11
rich, try bottled water.

Mr Ben
17-Nov-03, 18:24
Rich,

You don't seem to get the point, maybe because you heed is filled with your wonderful adventures and fantastic lifestyle [lol] well those of us that are happy to live in Caithness are glad your having such a nice time but really we don't care what is happening in your little world.

The fact is that these people can't always provide clean drinkable water to the public, to trust them to add something else to the water is just stupidity.

I get my water from same place as everyone else in Wick. What guarantee do I have that it is pollution free, none. That is my point, I have to pass my tap water through an ion exchange unit in order to make it drinkable. Either that or I buy bottled water.


You have cited examples of public water supplies becoming polluted. In each case the matter was swiftly corrected and the local media were alerted to spread the world to the general public.


Contaminated drinking water from a Cornish reservoir is probably to blame for permanently brain damaging some residents, says research.

55 people suffering from damage to their cerebral function, yes I'm sure they are really happy with the swift response.

squidge
17-Nov-03, 18:39
My water is very nice and very drinkable and i am in Caithness too. I would prefer my water flouride free, however i do understand the reasons for adding flouride to water. i would rather there was as little as possible added to my water but i understand that there is a need for some chemical additives so i am prepared to accept it.

Where else do we get flouride from? I know i could look it up but we have such good web searchers here jjc and now Mr Ben too that i will just let them get on with it.

i do think we should thank our lucky stars that we haave good available clean water though and stop complaining

rich
18-Nov-03, 01:56
My, dear Ben, if I may be so familiar (I feel I practically know you) there is no evidence that anybody in the case you cite suffered brain damage. The medical authority cited is a speculating nephrologist. He is qualified to deal with kidneys. Neurologists are the people who examine the brain.
So excuse me if I don't take your evidence seriously.
As for my lifestyle. Well, on the whole I think I'd rather be in Caithness.
And as for my lack of humanitarian zeal - what can I say, I'm just a very coarse sceptical sort of person. But if I were, heavens forbid, to become a zealot about the state of poor suffering humanity I think that Africa or Palestine would take precedence over the imagined state of the tap water in Caithness.
Drought and cholera are realities throughout much of the world.
In conclusion let me remind you that there was a major case of water pollution involving Perrier water a few years ago.
Which conjures up the delightful image of you quaffing down some allegedly pure spring water while watching Afghan women staggering through the desert with water drums on TV when suddenly aaarrrhhhh!!!!Your bowels run liquid,; you convulse; you perish....
I know, I know, I go to far....but really your anxieties are misplaced.
Believe me...I know....