Fluoride in tap water

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

I suppose that depends on how much you'll save on dental bills.

Reverse osmosis system costs on top of the water bill that I already pay for? Veneers for my fluorosis-affected teeth, and those of my family ? Now Toothsmith, if you're a dentist, are you NHS or are you one of the high-rollers? Because I've got this feeling that my dentist will present me with her list of private charges for veneers ........:eek:

tbs624

meekgeek wrote: »

LOL! that's science?

We may not agree, but I'm entitled to my view. I respect yours, but you appear intent on belittling mine.

How rude.

Absolutely with regard to GJs posting

melancholly

just thought i'd add in that i am a science postgrad - have studied biochem, pathology and physiology - just to say that i'm satisfied in myself that my reading of the articles on this has informed me sufficiently not to be worried!

i also want to ensure that toothsmith gets no hard ride for being a dentist. he is a mine of information and help on the health board - taking lots of time to give personal replies and explain the NHS system to everyone. his posts on the new dental contract are extremely helpful.

tbs624

melancholly wrote: »

just thought i'd add in that i am a science postgrad - have studied biochem, pathology and physiology - just to say that i'm satisfied in myself that my reading of the articles on this has informed me sufficiently not to be worried!

However, the fact you aren't worried doesn't give the right to over-ride the wishes of those who are: there are other methods of fluoride delivery, topical application works ( according to the studies), with the bonus that it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to not be medicated through something quite so basic a need as the provision of drinking water. IMO your first post had some quasi statistical points that were a tad fuzzy for a science PG?

melancholly wrote: »

i also want to ensure that toothsmith gets no hard ride for being a dentist. he is a mine of information and help on the health board - taking lots of time to give personal replies and explain the NHS system to everyone. his posts on the new dental contract are extremely helpful.

That's really thoughtful, but as a postgrad (or even if you were at A level) I would say that you'd be educated enough to know that it's not about giving anyone "a hard ride" . Discussing different viewpoints does not constitute a personal attack, and it doesn't bear any relevance to anyone's ability to be helpful elsewhere. I'm quite sure TS is capable of standing his own ground.

Toothsmith

tbs624 wrote: »

Reverse osmosis system costs on top of the water bill that I already pay for? Veneers for my fluorosis-affected teeth, and those of my family ? Now Toothsmith, if you're a dentist, are you NHS or are you one of the high-rollers? Because I've got this feeling that my dentist will present me with her list of private charges for veneers ........:eek:

You have evidence that there is an increase in veneer provision in fluoridated areas?

Why would anyone want veneers for almost imperceptible white flecks?

Your teeth are formed, so that won't affect you anyway - you'll just get the protection from root caries which will lower your bills, and a little protection against heart disease, which may well keep you earning for longer!

But - as I am of the private persuasion - even for kids, as I have no NHS contract at all, there may be some people who would rather just pay me for checkups for their kids rather than fillings.

Having said all that though, people who have the sense to bring their kids to me get all the prevention advice, diet advice, fluoride treatments, fissure sealants, and toothbrush instruction that the NHS can't afford. This, for them, probably make water fluoridation less of an issue.

But it probably costs them about 170 quid per child per year.

If the taxpayer wanted to pay that bill for every child, then you're probably right that fluoridation of water will be unnecessary.

As it is though, the few pence per child per year looks a very good, effective and safe public health measure. Especially if you consider the benefits to the rest of adult population as well.

As for citing the 'All Parliamentary Group Against Fluoride' as a source, well?

Hardly a neutral sounding name is it? And MPs will say anything if there's a chance of a vote in it!

Toothsmith

melancholly wrote: »

i also want to ensure that toothsmith gets no hard ride for being a dentist.

I'm a big boy! I can take it!

withabix

Toothsmith wrote: »

I'm a big boy!

Showoff! :rolleyes:

withabix

meekgeek wrote: »

and that can't be good can it?

so why is it good that we're being forced to ingest yet another toxic substance against our will, and the only advice I can get is to spend money on buying a filter?

I thought this was a money saving forum? Surely the best way to save money, mine and yours, is to fight against this proposal for mass medication?

I figured this forum would be populated by people that stood up for their freedoms, it seems not.

disappointed.

Get your water from another source? Rainwater. Dirty puddle. River...:rolleyes:

Nobody is forcing you to drink the water that comes out of your tap.

melancholly

my point about being a science postgrad was to say that i understand things like 'athens passwords' and publishing (i personally found your post a bit patronising!) - it was entirely separate from my point about TS! there was a much earlier post being rude to TS and the comment on expensive veneers was a bit off - that was the only reason for my comment on that - it was getting personal!! hence i didn't like it. i thought that was pretty self evident in most post (separate paragraphs and all )

i'm also not 'over-riding' anyone's wishes - i don't have the power to anyway so i don't understand that comment at all! odd choice of words that doesn't make much sense! i'm stating that my opinion is informed by perhaps more of the scientific understanding of disease processes, rather than pure epidemiology of incidence which is what most of the claims made here seem to be based on.

my fuzzy stats..... again, as with the post meekgeek, i'd take you more seriously if you managed not to get personal. i always take major issue with any arguement where the aim seems to be to undermine the opposition rather than tackling it directly!

as it happens, i don't think the NHS can support giving flouride-based treatment to people who need it, mainly because they aren't really the people who go for regular check ups! all made in much more eloquent post by TS above!

(and TS, i'm sure you can hold your own much much better than i can - although i cannot confirm or deny your self assessed 'big' status )

withabix

tbs624 wrote: »

For goodness sake.... if you have nothing intelligent to say why not go and find a competition to enter. You might win a brain.

And your point is?

Nobody is forced to drink tap water. Other sources are available and you are free to choose to drink them if you are not satisfied with the water supplied to your tap with a legal chemical composition.

Reported your abusive post for your trouble