Jump to content
Coronavirus topics renamed and some locked. No new topics. ×
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

Polaris

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Polaris

  • Rank
    MF Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    A bar selling Bushy's ale
  • Interests
    Silly question
  1. Polaris - I presume you do not understand chemistry and so do not understand this: H2SiF6(aq) + 4 H2O . 6 HF(aq) + Si(OH)4(aq) (1) Na2SiF6(aq) + 4 H2O . 4 HF(aq) + 2 NaF(aq) + Si(OH)4(aq) (2) NaF . Na+(aq) + F–(aq) (3) Chinahand - If you presume I do not understand chemistry why post the formulae? You could write a similar formula for brine and bang about it containing chlorine ions (you’d probably say chloride ions though). Any normal person would say brine is water with salt added. By the way F- is a fluorine ion. It looks like the fluorosilicic acid used to mass-medicate people in the USA is contaminated with arsenic. Nice. Does the fluorosilicic acid used in England come from the USA? Perhaps the stuff you want us to be mass-medicated with here comes from a more contaminated source. Who manfactures the fluorosilic acid used in England and Ireland? I guess that is the stuff you'd have the Manx Water Authority treat us with. I don’t think I made any claims about incomplete dissociation. I don’t think we are going to get anywhere anyway because medicating us via our water supply is fundamentally wrong. When you are prescribed medication by your doctor, do you you insist on your next door neighbour taking it? Of course you don’t. Fluoridation is no different. All the talk about “fluoride ions” is to cover-up its industrial waste source. Chlorine is added to water to make it safe to drink, fluorosilicic acid is added to water to treat people. I would love to see the English revolt against fluoridation like they they revolted against the poll tax. We could join in too. All those subjected to fluoridation world-wide could join in. If we all withheld our payments to the water utilities until all fluoridation legislation world-wide is repealed, the fluoro-madness would soon end.
  2. Bushey’s ale tint actually. You are hilarious! Talk to the Chinahand about that. What like you’ve just written you mean? Er, because IT IS an acid and that is one of those things called a fact. Mmmm a McVities digestive. I’ll dip it in my pint of Bushey’s ale. big annoucement coming… Chinahand’s loss is our gain. With regard to your desire to be arrested for assault, just post a message with your personal details and a statement to the effect that you would like to see the Manx population administered with fluorosilicic acid (oops! I said again) via our water supply without our individual, informed consent and that you accept full liability for any subsequent harm caused i.e. dental fluorosis minimum. Upload an image of your signed statement with your signature and name in capitals clearly visible and I am sure it will get due consideration. Oh yes, and it takes a numpty idiot to think he knows one (assuming you're a he of course).
  3. Does it contain fluorine? Yes, it's one of the principal sources of it, so surely it's a fluoride (that it's an acid is neither here nor there) "Oriental friend"? You're an idiot. Well, I guess it takes an idiot to think he/she knows an idiot. No slight was intended by my use of "Oriental friend". You've shown you have a great grasp of chemistry. Next time I'm looking for a non-stick frying pan should I ask for one coated with that well known fluoride - polytetrafluoroethylene?
  4. Fluoridate is a misnomer as the chemical Chinahand wants to mass-medicate us all with is an acid (fluorosilicic) and not a fluoride. Shurely Chinahand and his co mass-medicators should be talking about fluoroacidulation (anagram that). NO is another great word. Sadly, our Oriental friend has great difficulty understanding what it means. I'd anagram the word NO but the wordsmith.org site is down at the moment.
  5. For Isle of Man Newspapers I believe the best e-mail address is this one : - newsdesk@newsiom.co.im What's the consultation address to reply NO to? Emerson's probably had postcards printed for the island's doctors and dentists to send in. Talk about a stitch-up. Let's hope they have the sense to say NO too (Hippocratic Oath - First, do no harm).
  6. Ha ha ha - no it isn't its brilliant! Not in my opinion. Even if I thought it cringe worthy or not I could see the point if they were doing the advertising on buses in the UK to bring awareness about the IoM to the UK. What I fail to get is why are we doing the whole visit the Isle of Sam thing in the Isle of Man. Surely anybody who will see it is either a resident or by definition already visits the IoM. I get the impression that the tourist board feel they must do something, that this is something so this is what they should do. I had the "privalege" of sitting behind Carol Glover once on the boat to Liverpool. She was discussing matters merrily away to one of her colleagues and I have to admit I was so appalled I nearly interrupted her to tell her that in my opinion she was spouting rubbish. OK it is only my opinion and she may well be right but I am probably the sort of person they are looking to attract to the IoM. A parent happy to holiday in the UK with a young family. Not too penny conscious & just looking to go somewhere there are things to do in reasonable close proximity as a family day out. Listening to her speak I just thought she was giving the impression that she had no idea of what sort of things would appeal to families like mine. Each to their own and I am fairly ambivalent on the matter as I do not watch the show. But whilst she may be making many oy you proud I am as you say fairly ambivbalent on the matter so you may wish to amend your future statements to "you are making all but one of us very proud" Whether this makes me weird or a moron I am not sure, I always thought that a moron related to lack of intelligence. As obvioulsy you are not lacking in this department I am surprised that you have still not got the point that the majority of us are not embarressed by the Islans support for Sam, As I say I am fairly ambivalent. What I am embarrassed about is if it is done in a cheap, tacky and tawdry way which in my opinion some of the IoM promotion has been to the extreme. A similar point was made when the IoM was featured in an episode of coast when some felt the Interview with a film extra equally did not present the IoM in the best light I vote for Andrew Lloyd Webber as Nancy and Graham Norton as Oliver - Oh my God (Gaia), look at the size of my telephone bill!
  7. I haven't time at the moment to discuss most of your posts, but this is totally wrong. The figures I've used do not compare ROI with Ulster. They compare Fluorinated areas of the ROI with unfluorinated areas of ROI. They have matched for income, sociological background etc. Of course sealants etc have a role in reducing caries, but these are used generally throughout the ROI and so cannot explain the clear statistically valid differences in caries level between fluorinated and non fluorinated areas. Put simply you do not believe the figures from the ROI, you ignore the efforts of dentists etc to ensure they control for confounding factors and believe the differences found between fluorinated and non-fluorinated areas of the ROI are a mirage. I disagree profoundly with you on this. I see clear efforts to control for confounding factors, and simply do not understand why a dentist working in Cork, or County Donegal would distort the caries levels prevalent in their clinics. Can you explain why they would compromise their scientific integrity? Are you really going to claim they don't understand the issues of confounding factors, or are in hoc to the fluoride manufacturers? In this thread people are continually demanding that I go away and learn about this or that. Apart from the fact that I am reasonably aware of these things - I've undertaken extensive rigourous work in multivariate environments - my knowledge is irrelevant. What is relevant is that modern science is entirely predicated on isolating confounding factors. Researchers spend the vast majority of their time ensuring their control groups are matched. Read the Irish reports - they go to great lengths to match their samples. They undertake multivarient analysis. They are the people who say fluoride works, not me. I have only reported their work and tried to put it into context. I link to papers from multiple sources, I use Pubmed and find thousands of papers investigating these issues. You lot seem to only publish stuff from the Fluoride Journal and make claims contradicting the World Health Organization and other massively respected bodies who's entire raison d'etre is to give unbiased scientific advice so that policy makers can make the political/ethical decisions based on good hard data. I have never denied that there is an ethical debate about the mass use of fluoride in water - but what I have said is that this is a contested debate. There are moral arguments to be made in favour of it. As it is contested I believe that the burden should shift more to the science and the actual effectiveness of the results. You say its a failed experiment - well if you say that you have to claim to know more than the World Health Organization, the CDC, the FDA, the Irish Health Ministry, the BMA, BDA etc etc. I don't claim to know more than these people, I am fully aware that this is a highly contested and controversial area and that there are competing papers. You can compile lists of Nobel Prize winners etc: great, but these people have not presented a body of evidence sufficient to change the scientific consensus. The bibliography for the York review contains over 300 papers – 8 of them are from “Fluoride” including one from Mr Colquhoun. That to me is a pretty good measure of the weight of evidence. The York report’s multivariate meta analysis says the average improvement is 2.25 fewer cavities – the Irish data is 1.80 totally within the statistical range which is statistically robust – fluoridation results in fewer cavities. The York reports multivariate meta analysis of fluorosis says that aesthetically concerning fluorosis will increase by a proportion of 4.5% going from low levels of fluoride to 1.0ppm. Ireland has an increase of 4.0% in any fluorosis above mild. I think the context is clear – York says 225 cavities will be saved for every 100 people with 4.5 more cases of aesthetically concerning fluorosis. Ireland 180 cavities with 4 cases of fluorosis. Yes it is sad that 4 or so people will get fluorosis and they will need to be treated. But it is also sad that 180 or so cavities could be saved. This is a trade off. That is what life is about. Point taken on the figures you’ve used but my point still stands - expenditure per head of population must be confounded for when comparing dental health statistics between Southern and Northern Ireland and when comparing fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas of Eire. If would be interesting to see a breakdown of sealant use between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas in Eire. If the teeth are sealed, what possible benefit can be gained from fluoridated water with its non-existent cariostatic effect? (CDC 1999). You profoundly disagree? How does this differ from simply disagreeing? Individuals can know better than institutions. Who got it right about the nature of our solar system in the 16th century? The Church of Rome or Copernicus? CoR persecuted Galileo for promulgating the Copernican view because it could not be seen to have got it wrong (I believe Galileo was pardoned by CoR in the 1970s). The push for fluoridation continues because the mad mass-medicating fluoro-mullahs cannot admit they’ve got it so wrong and cling to poor-to-moderate studies, which are associated with high-to-moderate risk of bias. Let’s hope it doesn’t take the fluoridistas as long as CoR to realise what a monumnetal mistake they’ve made. Replicating nature – give me a break. Just where does fluorosilicic acid occur naturally outside the confines of a super phosphate fertiliser factory? Your point about the Fluoride Journal papers is silly. How many different journals published the remaining 292+ papers? There isn’t any high quality research to support any claims of safety or efficacy for fluoridation. Even if there were it would still be wrong as our water supply should not be used as a means to medicate us without our individual informed consent. “Yes it is sad that 4 or so people will get fluorosis…”. By advocating fluoridation you are committing an act of assault (the threat of violence – the administration of a unwanted substance), which could result in actual bodily harm (dental fluorosis). If you were to get your way the act of battery would be carried out by the Manx Water Authority. I believe Manx WA, you and other proponents would be liable for any harm and criminally so.
  8. Chinahand, 1839 would be considered a small sample group with a low statistical power, when you consider the population size from which it is sampled. Erm - no - that is a reasonable size used in a Phase 3 medical trial - the largest trial before approval. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry Link That's all very well, but we are not talking about Phase 3 drug trials - we are talking about analysis of disease incidence/prevalence within a population. The regulation of clinical trials for new drugs is designed to strike a balance between safety and development costs, and was negotiated in part with the pharmaceutical industry. Many drugs get through trials on smaller trial cohort numbers and are withdrawn after disastrous side-effects are uncovered. Vioxx and myocardial infarctions, being a case in point. I realize this is a controversial issue, but fluoridation isn't a new chemical being introduced into the environment. It is artificially replicating a natural environment existing elsewhere. Millions of people have been taking part in a natural exeriment into the affects of fluoride in water since time in memorial. The health statistics for Naples, or Gatehead, are there to be examined, analysed and argued over. These allow very clear epidemiological information to be prepared - the test "volunteers" were born, and bred drinking the stuff. Comparing a thousand people taking a novel chemical and extrapolating the results to a general population is VASTLY different from having a general population imbibing the substance and then sampling them. In one you are extapolating outwards, in the other inwards. In one there are no general health statistics to base the study on, in the other the general health environment is known. Comparing fluoride to Vioxx is simply an invalid comparison, but a useful one - the ill effects of Vioxx became readily apparant, when the usage of the drug was a million fold less than the consumption of fluoride in drinking water. That is the rub - huge natural populations consume fluoride in their water, living adjacent to equally large populations who don't. The control is naturally available. Fluoridation is a failed 60+ year experiment, which continues because the muppets promoting it lack the integrity to admit they got it wrong. What systems are in place to look for harm from fluoridation other than dental fluorosis? In training, are doctors taught that fluoride is a cumulative poison with a toxicity close to that of arsenic? In England, the West Midlands has dental health comparable to the home counties because spending per head of population in similar. But, dental health expenditure in the West Midlands is higher than in Manchester, another fluoridation target I believe. See: www.dpb.nhs.uk/archive/nhs_statistics/index.shtml and go figure. And swot up on confounding factors.
  9. I really don't get this - as science has developed we have gained a better understanding of HOW water fluoridation protects teeth. Look at the Irish data - huge epidemeological level research - there is a very clear benefit in reduced caries with only very small ill effects: 180 cavitites vrs less than 4 cases of aesthetically damaging fluorosis. What else would account for the differences - the researchers matched the samples by income level etc. Fluoridation reduces caries - that is as close to a scientific fact as you can get in population studies. The majority of people in both the fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas use fluoride toothpaste scrub their teeth with the usual frequency etc. But EVEN with regular scrubbing etc the benefits of fluoridation still improve oral health significantly in those areas that have it compared to areas that don't. The research you are quoting is investigating how fluoridation improves oral health. Quite definitely it isn't saying "we don't need to drink fluorinated water" - its saying when you drink fluorinated water, or guiness, or eat potatos boiled in it, or whatever it helps your teeth develop resistence to caries. That resistence comes about whether you are 4 or 40 - which wouldn't happen if it only occurred during tooth formation. Look at the data - drinking fluorinated water helps reduce cavities by alot - people in non fluorinated areas of ROI have 58% more cavities than those in fluorinated areas. I find it incredible that that advantage is just dismissed especially for 2% fluorosis. What is there not to get, fluoridation doesn’t work and is mass-medication to boot. Fluoridation can only take place when 100% of those affected have consented to it and any of those participating would have the right to withdraw at any time, so ending the particular scheme. Epidemiology can identify trends but is not and should never be confused with high quality research – randomized, double-blind studies in which every conceivable confounding factor has been taken into account. You can stack epidemiology studies to the moon and beyond and it will not make fluoridation efficacy a fact. One of the biggest confounding factors that yourself and BillyBiker conveniently ignore is expenditure on dental health. Save Our Water has very helpfully enlightened us to the greater use of sealants in the Republic of Ireland and this might indicate greater dental expenditure per head of population in Eire compared to Ulster. If there is no point in ingesting fluoride and any claimed benefit from F in high concentration is topical (CDC 1999). What high-quality scientific evidence is there to support the claim that water containing fluorine ions to 1 ppm has any cariostatic effect? If water containing fluorine ions to 1 ppm has any cariostatic effect why are toothpastes sold containing 1,400+ ppm? If you are interested in epidemiology studies you may be interested in this graph: from: http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm From what I’ve read thus far it's clear that fluoridation is a mad practice that only those of a mass-medicating totalitarian mindset would promote.
  10. Isn't the world wide web great. I Googled 'CDC' and found this: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm from which I cherry-picked this: Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries Biologic Mechanism Fluoride's caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral. However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children (1). These mechanisms include 1) inhibition of demineralization, 2) enhancement of remineralization, and 3) inhibition of bacterial activity in dental plaque (1). References 1. Featherstone JD. Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999;27:31-40. 2. Burt BA. Influences for change in the dental health status of populations: an historical perspective. J Public Health Dent 1978;38:272-88. 3. Britten RH, Perrott GSJ. Summary of physical findings on men drafted in world war. Pub Health Rep 1941;56:41-62. So, it would appear we don't need to drink fluoridated water as fluoride's effect is topical. What an achievement. Commit an act of battery on hundreds of millions of people and actual bodily harm (dental fluorosis) on a sizeable percentage and 50+ years later issue a statement which means it's all been for nowt.
  11. Is fluoride essential for human health and is there a daily intake we should not exceed? You can have too much of a good thing and you can definitely have too much of a bad thing. Do you ride side-car with ballaughbiker?
  12. "Severe" Fluorosis Look, no Veneers... If no veneers are used, won't the teeth quickly become stained by food and drink to look like this - again?
  13. Polaris

    Baby Bird

    Don't use your loaf! - http://www.rspb.org.uk/news/details.asp?id=tcm:9-189362
  14. I'll look out for you too. Will you still be wearing the yellow dress?
  15. Polaris

    Baby Bird

    Sizzle the baby Blackbird or the cat with mushrooms and garlic? Minxie, if you see a salivating, slanty-eyed man wearing a Mandarin outfit in the vicinity of your garden phone the police and RSPB.
×
×
  • Create New...