UK - Sensible debate is what is needed
Sensible debate is what is needed
8:20am Thursday 11th September 2008
By Readers' Letter »
I HAVE been involved in public affairs as a councillor, university teacher and health service senior manager for more than 30 years and I have never come across any subject that attracts the sheer volume of misinformation that attends water fluoridation.
Your correspondent, PJ Carroll, provides a prime example in the letter, “Evidence is against water fluoridation” (September 5).
I could spend a lot of time dealing with all the points raised in the letter, but if I deal with the absolute inaccuracy of just one of the statements, maybe readers would be able to form a view of the veracity of the rest.
PJ Carroll writes: “From 1972 to 1974 the number of heart attacks in Antigo, Wisconsin, doubled in a year following addition of fluoride to the water systems. “Because of this, they took the fluoride out and the heart attack rate came down.”
The facts are that the current fluoridation system in Antigo was introduced in October, 1965, and was still operative when I retired from the NHS last year.
Perhaps PJ Carroll would like to let readers have the source of his — inaccurate — information.
The facts are that water fluoridation is effective in improving dental health and there is no good evidence of any adverse effects on general health.
If the SHA comes up with a cost-effective scheme there is only one sensible objection, and that is the argument that the water supply is not an appropriate medium through which to pursue a public health agenda.
This is a perfectly legitimate view and it is the one taken by David Crausby MP. Bolton’s other two MPs support water fluoridation.
What is needed is a sensible debate on this essentially ethical/political point and not a barrage of misinformation and pseudo-science, which only confuses and alarms the public.
Guy Harkin, Former director of the North-west Fluoridation Evaluation Group
What is needed is a sensible debate on this essentially ethical/political point and not a barrage of misinformation and pseudo-science from the Strategic Health Authority.
8:20am Thursday 11th September 2008
By Readers' Letter »
I HAVE been involved in public affairs as a councillor, university teacher and health service senior manager for more than 30 years and I have never come across any subject that attracts the sheer volume of misinformation that attends water fluoridation.
Your correspondent, PJ Carroll, provides a prime example in the letter, “Evidence is against water fluoridation” (September 5).
I could spend a lot of time dealing with all the points raised in the letter, but if I deal with the absolute inaccuracy of just one of the statements, maybe readers would be able to form a view of the veracity of the rest.
PJ Carroll writes: “From 1972 to 1974 the number of heart attacks in Antigo, Wisconsin, doubled in a year following addition of fluoride to the water systems. “Because of this, they took the fluoride out and the heart attack rate came down.”
The facts are that the current fluoridation system in Antigo was introduced in October, 1965, and was still operative when I retired from the NHS last year.
Perhaps PJ Carroll would like to let readers have the source of his — inaccurate — information.
The facts are that water fluoridation is effective in improving dental health and there is no good evidence of any adverse effects on general health.
If the SHA comes up with a cost-effective scheme there is only one sensible objection, and that is the argument that the water supply is not an appropriate medium through which to pursue a public health agenda.
This is a perfectly legitimate view and it is the one taken by David Crausby MP. Bolton’s other two MPs support water fluoridation.
What is needed is a sensible debate on this essentially ethical/political point and not a barrage of misinformation and pseudo-science, which only confuses and alarms the public.
Guy Harkin, Former director of the North-west Fluoridation Evaluation Group
What is needed is a sensible debate on this essentially ethical/political point and not a barrage of misinformation and pseudo-science from the Strategic Health Authority.
posted by Bill at
9:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home