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

pontiuspilot

Members
  • Content Count

    122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About pontiuspilot

  • Rank
    MF Senior Member
  1. come on tiptop, or should i say employee of a certain house builder despite your denial, its meant as a joke. but like all good jokes there is a grain of truth in it I am sure.
  2. This house comes with all the usual assurances from dandara about build quality and a 25 year guarantee. It will last about as long as any other dandara house. It has stunning views off baldwin and sneafell. It is a new build so it will take a while to dry out properly. You will have to provide your own door if you are shy. But remember don't eat the yellow snow!
  3. This house comes with all the usual assurances from dandara about build quality and a 25 year guarantee. It will last about as long as any other dandara house. It has stunning views off baldwin and sneafell. It is a new build so it will take a while to dry out properly. You will have to provide your own door if you are shy. But remember don't eat the yellow snow!
  4. "TT photographic exhibition staged"? you mean its not a real one, that they are faking it?
  5. once again Chinahand you and i are in agreement. especially with regards to SOW. He does indeed have more than a whiff of a fanatic about him. as his views are so extreme it would be wrong of any government trying to decide on a matter designed to improve public health to pay too much attention to him. as you and I have said SOW distorts the science for his own aims. it is the good name of science that i wish to defend the most. if people such as him, who step into the scientific arena with no real right to be there, that often bring science itself into disrepute. he has entered the bear pit, if he does not like the heat he finds while in it he should turn about and remove himself from the debate. fools are not suffered within science, but those who admit when they are wrong are often applauded for doing so.
  6. Huh - you really aren't capable of interpreting scientific data are you. By the age of 15 on average they will have had 2.1 teeth filled - it is not stated when they had this work done - it could have been done years earlier. you've talked a lot of sense on this subject me old Chinahand. if you think that logical argument will work with SOW forget it, as you have alluded he is a one trick pony with his needle stuck. when i have pointed out his scientific short comings to him he gets very nasty indeed. i have the messages to prove it.
  7. no they are getting war veterns to drive them
  8. doric this is not a mattter of point scoring for me at least. the science will win in the end. although i am a interested to know what aspect of SOW's argument caused you make such a post.
  9. from your post SOW:- "Well done Pontiuspilot, you managed to find a dental organisation in a fluoridating country that supports water fluoridation! This will be the same organisation that helped give birth to the British Fluoridation Society Limited – hardly unbiased then." don't patronise me SOW, you are not in such a position to do so. you being a layman to science. i put in the full comment from the BDA so that i would not be accused of cherry picking small portions to bolster my argument. this being your tactic. you are also capable of finding this information.why is it not on your web site if you are unbiased. the charge of cowardice still stands, for despite your clam of unbiased reporting your web site is very biased and factually wrong in many areas. BDA giving birth to the BFSL? wether that is true or not i think you are taking yet another leap into the world of conspiracy theories and other such ghouls and goblins. i would much sooner listen to the BDA on the matter dental health than some one not only ignorant of dentistry, but also chemical science as well. as to "a dental organisation in a fluoridating country that supports water fluoridation!" i really dont see the relevance of your statement. it does not add to your argument in anyway. thin as your argument is. the countries you have quoted it would appear have ducked the issue of fluoridation by hiding behind quasi legal/human rights arguments and avoided making decisions on scientific grounds. the mass medication" argument is a mere red herring, and a deliberate gross over reaction. after all water already has chloride in it. merely one full orbital more than fluoride. (i.e. 1s2,2s2,2p6,3s2,3p5; as opposed to 1s2,2s2,2p5) could that not be considered mass medication on your terms. the denmark quote is ill informed, fluoride is dosed at levels that are below toxicity.
  10. enclosed are the veiws of the British dental association on flouridation. this information has ben cowardly avoided by SOW and his freinds Fluoride Fluoride has long been used as a means of protecting the teeth from dental caries. It can be used in a variety of ways such as targeted water fluoridation, fluoride toothpaste, fluoride rinses, being added to milk, and topical fluoride varnish. This fact file examines the evidence on the use of fluoride as a means of preventing dental caries and reducing oral health inequalities. This document is available in pdf format. Click here to download. Summary Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that has a history of being used as a means of reducing dental caries. It can be brought into contact with teeth in a number of ways such as targeted water fluoridation, fluoride toothpaste, fluoride rinses, being added to milk, and topical fluoride varnish. In some areas, fluoride is added to water as a means of reducing dental decay and tackling oral health inequalities. The evidence shows that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce the prevalence of dental decay. The degree to which caries is reduced, however, is not clear from the data available. Funding is needed for further research into fluoridation and ongoing, high quality monitoring of fluoridation schemes. The British Dental Association, along with many other leading healthcare organisations, supported an amendment to the Water Bill 2003, which is now enacted in England, but is not in effect in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The Water Bill means that water companies are required to fluoridate water supplies where it has been agreed following public consultation. As well as methods of increasing the availability of fluoride – be it through fluoridated water, fluoride rinses, fluoride varnish, or fluoride toothpaste – a strategy to improve oral health should also include plans to incorporate healthy eating advice, identifying sugar-free medicines, improving periodontal health, stop smoking guidance, accessing alcohol misuse, and prevention of erosion. What is fluoride and how does it work? Bringing teeth into contact with fluoride can make a big difference to the standard of oral health in the UK. The use of fluoride has a track record of reducing caries dental decay (caries). (1) Dental caries occur through demineralisation of dental hard tissue. Fluoride works to improve oral health by enhancing remineralisation, therefore protecting against dental caries . The demineralisation of hard dental tissue is also caused by sugars in the diet. It is therefore recommended to combine fluoride with a healthy diet low in sugar. Fluoride is a naturally-occurring mineral found in many foods and in water. Fluoride can be obtained through a number of means - targeted water fluoridation, fluoride toothpaste, fluoride rinses, being added to milk, and topical fluoride varnish. Fluoridation of water The addition of fluoride into water supplies in certain areas could reduce the levels of tooth decay and of oral health inequalities. The British Dental Association, along with many other leading healthcare organisations, supported an amendment to the Water Act 2003, which is now enacted in England. The Water Bill means that water companies are required to fluoridate water supplies where the local community, through consultation, chooses to have it. The previous 1991 Water Industry Act, still in effect in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, puts no obligation on water companies to fluoridate, even if the Health Authority were to request it. Why is water fluoridation needed? Water fluoridation is an effective public health measure in reducing dental decay and tackling oral health inequalities. Tooth decay is a significant problem in the UK and dental health inequalities are widening. In socially deprived communities, as many as one in three children under the age of five will have one or more decayed teeth extracted. What is fluoride and how is it added to water? Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral which can protect teeth in a number of ways. It makes developing enamel more resistant to acid, it helps to repair teeth during the early stages of decay, and it prevents tooth decay by reducing the ability of plaque bacteria to produce acid. In some areas, fluoride occurs naturally, but other areas have chosen to add it to the water for public health reasons. Fluoridation takes place at the water treatment plant where a solution of fluoride is added into water under close control to adjust the natural level to the optimum for dental health - one part per million (1ppm). The chemicals used for water fluoridation are specifically manufactured to very high quality standards, and must meet Department of Environment purity specifications. How many people receive fluoridated water? Only 10 per cent of the UK population receives fluoridated water compared with 67 per cent in the USA in 2002. (2) Major schemes are in operation in Birmingham, throughout the West Midlands and also in Tyneside. About 500,000 people receive water which naturally contains fluoride at or about the level of 1ppm, while a further one million people receive water which naturally contains fluoride at a lower level, but which is still considered to confer some dental benefits. What is the evidence that fluoridated water is beneficial? The benefits of fluoride were first observed through observing patterns of dental decay in areas with differing natural levels of fluoride in the water. Evidence of the potential fluoridation offers for reducing health inequalities may be found from the contrasting levels of tooth decay in areas of similar population mix. In Sandwell the water supply was fluoridated in 1986. Over the following 10 years, the amount of tooth decay in children had more than halved. During the same period Bolton, with a comparable population mix, saw little change in its children's oral health. (3) Over recent years, two major investigations in the UK have taken place - one by the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (4) and the other by the Medical Research Council (MRC). (5) Additional substantive reviews have also been produced in Ireland (6) and most recently Australia (2007). (7) While findings have generally shown fluoridation to be beneficial, and no evidence has been found of any adverse effects, the results have been inconclusive. This raises the issue of a need for more research done in this area. The York review in 2000 confirmed that fluoride helps to reduce tooth decay. The report concludes that the best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce the prevalence of dental decay. The degree to which caries is reduced, however, is not clear from the data available. The report also highlights that fluoride can cause fluorosis. Fluorosis can appear as very fine white marks on the surface of the teeth, only detectable by a dental expert, or more visible white marks on the teeth, and can occur when teeth are exposed to fluoride from 0 months to 8 years old. The York review found there to be a dose-response relationship between water fluoride level and the prevalence of fluorosis. The MRC report concluded that little high quality research had been carried out on the broader question of fluoride and health, and that the available evidence did not allow confident estimates to be made of other possible risks to health or of the benefits of water fluoridation in reducing dental health inequalities. The report found no evidence of adverse health effects of water fluoridation. It made recommendations for further research. In the report by the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council, when answering the research question “Is intentional water fluoridation more efficacious than no water fluoridation in the prevention of dental caries?” it is concluded that the existing body of evidence strongly suggests that water fluoridation is beneficial at reducing dental caries. In April 2003, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Primary Care and Public Health carried out their own investigation, making recommendations that targeted water fluoridation be stated as a legitimate and effective means of tackling dental health inequalities. They also recommend that current legislation be amended to allow the responsible health body to request water companies to fluoridate as directed. The findings of the York review and MRC report mean that it is important that there is funding in the UK for studies of the highest methodological standards and appropriate data standards to determine the size of the effect of fluoridation in the current environment. Moreover, funding is needed for ongoing, high quality monitoring of fluoridation schemes. Does my area have fluoridated water? The British Fluoridation Society report One in A Million – The facts about water fluoridation, lists water fluoridation levels by Strategic Health Authority (SHA) and Primary Care Trust (PCT). This document can be accessed at http://www.bfsweb.org/onemillion/onemillion.htm. Chapter 7, The extent of water fluoridation, provides this information. Is it safe? What about the health claims in the media? All major reviews of the evidence, including the York and MRC reviews, found no evidence to support claims that it causes cancer, bone disease, kidney disease or birth defects. Negative media stories often refer to studies where the concentration of fluoride is much higher than the recommended level. The recommended level in the UK is one part of fluoride to every million parts of water (1ppm). What about dental fluorosis? Dental fluorosis is a cosmetic defect of the enamel ranging from mild speckling to more noticeable marking. The York review highlights that exposure to fluoride can cause fluorosis. The MRC report found no evidence of adverse health effects, but noted this as an area that requires more research to ascertain prevalence and establish the public's perception of fluorosis. What about civil liberties? In a society where people come together for mutual benefit, there should be a balance between personal preferences versus the common good arising from the lower levels of tooth decay which fluoridation brings. Reducing health inequalities is central to the aims of public health, and water fluoridation may improve dental health across the population, including lower socio-economic groups. A population-wide measure such as water fluoridation also has the potential to improve the oral health of children, who are less able to make informed choices regarding their oral health and therefore more susceptible to dental caries. BDA believes it is important that people have the opportunity to enter into an informed and open debate. What is the current situation? The British Dental Association, along with many other leading healthcare organisations, supported an amendment to the Water Bill 2003, which is now enacted in England, but is not in effect in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The Water Bill means that water companies are required to fluoridate water supplies where it has been agreed following public consultation. PCTs are responsible for considering the dental health of the local population, and whether this might be improved by water fluoridation. If a suitable scheme can be identified, the PCT requests the SHA to undertake a public consultation, in which everyone living and working in the area would have an opportunity to contribute and make their views known. If SHAs decide to proceed with exploring the benefits of fluoridation, before carrying out a consultation, they should consult the water undertakers concerned to determine whether arrangements would be operable and efficient. The response to the consultations will indicate the extent of support for a proposal. In assessing the responses, SHAs will need to consider if they are evidence based and, if so the quality of the evidence, the relevance of the representations to the health arguments over fluoridation, and the nature of the individual/ body making the representations. If the consultation responses in favour of proceeding outweigh all arguments against proceeding with the fluoridation scheme, the SHA(s) should apply to the Department of Health for an indemnity to be issued to the water undertaker. The SHA should then negotiate an agreement with the water undertaker. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the 1991 Water Act is the current position, in which puts no obligation on water companies to fluoridate, even if the Health Authority requests it. Is water fluoridation the only measure for preventing dental decay at population level? No. We suggest that every SHA/PCT should have an oral health strategy which should consider all effective methods to improve oral health locally. As well as methods of increasing the availability of fluoride – be it through fluoridated water, fluoride rinses, fluoride varnish, or fluoride toothpaste – a strategy to improve oral health should also include plans to incorporate healthy eating advice, identifying sugar-free medicines, improving periodontal health, stop smoking guidance, accessing alcohol misuse, and prevention of erosion. References 1. Cheng K K et al. Adding fluoride to water supplies. BMJ Volume 335; 6 October 2007 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fluoridation Status: Percentage of U.S. Population on Public Water Supply Systems Receiving Fluoridated Water. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/nohss/FluoridationV.asp. Accessed 15 January 2008 3. Chief Dental Officer, Department of Health. Fluoridation of drinking water: Letter and Guidance, September 2005 4. McDonagh M et al. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. A systematic review on water fluoridation, September 2000 http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm. Accessed 15 January 2008 5. Medical Research Council. Medical Research Council working group report: Water fluoridation and health, September 2002 http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrec...htm?d=MRC002482 . Accessed 15 January 2008 6. Ireland Department of Health and Children. Report on the Forum on Water Fluoridation, September 2002 http://www.dohc.ie/publications/fluoridation_forum.html. Accessed 15 January 2008 7. The Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation, June 2007 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synop..._files/eh41.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2008 SOW you don't have a leg to stand on, please go away and let the isle of man get on with making the right choice for it's population.
  11. it was launched, (not lonched) to take a group of teenagers off conister rock, after they left it too long to get back from the tower of refuge before the tide came in. i was out there and made it back, but got my feet wet in doing so.
  12. a message to SOW, given all the fuss you have caused over the otherwise uncotentious issue of improving dental health with your over stating the dental flourosis point, and the fact that you have complicated and politicised the issue, is it not about time that you came clean and told the world who you are? or are you going to continue to hide behind your anonymity. otherwise the conspiracy label that you have been sticking on the govermnent may be more appropriatly placed on you.
  13. I really recommend that people look at Page 19 of last week's Courier, then look up that survey on the net before they accuse us of anything. They will then see what has happened in the fluoridated part of Ireland. The report quite clearly states that in the fully fluoridated areas of the RoI that of 15 year old children 5% have 'mild' fluorosis, 1% have 'Moderate' fluorosis and 1% have 'Severe' fluorosis, yet in Northen Ireland UN-FLUORIDATED the levels of fluorosis for 15 years old's for 'Mild, 'Moderate' and 'Severe' are ALL ZERO! But don't take my word for it go check for yourself. RoI fluoridates at between 0.8 and 1.0 part per million (it states that in the report too), now would you like your son or daughter to be the 1 in a hundred to develop 'Moderate' or 'Severe' fluorosis? Or the 5 in a hundred to develop 'Mild'? All of which would require cosmetic dentistry to 'cover up', and which would require lifetime upkeep by a dentist. Why are the DHSS not telling you this, because they have dowplayed the issue, go to www.saveourwateriom.com and read their stements on fluorosis, then look at the images, including 'Severe' as recorded in the fully fluoridated part of the RoI. i have seen page 19 of the courier, you are scare mongering!!!! this is nothing more than discolouration in a small proportion of the population. it is much more preferable to the situation we have at the moment with many children having rotten teeth. SOW you are a real fanatic, once this has all gone away and we have flouride in the water what will be next, fundamentalist islam? prohibition? ban the bomb? the list for things for you to do is endless. additionally, you never discuss the main issues you only want to talk about minor semantic points after over analysing your chosen set of statistics. flouride improves dental health, it is as simple as that.
  14. SOW your scare mongering propoganda machine has gone into overdrive. i did warn you against this some time back. you are distorting the facts far beyond the relms of reason. you seem to imagine that dental flourosis is the new black death. those picture could be from anywhere. who is to say that they have anything to do with a 1ppm Flouride content in the water. and as for that video, it is just desperate rubbish. some fluoride compounds are poisonous, but so are many hundreds of other things that we eat and drink. the key to the issue is concentration. 1 ppm of flouride is harmless. you did not listen to a single word i told you on this subject. i said before i had no strong opinion on this, but now that i am aware of the state of dental health among the children over here i think it would be criminal not to try and do something about it. flouridation is a good and useful tool in achieving better dental health. don't get me wrong it is not he whole answer, more dentist are also needed. but we have to start some where.
×
×
  • Create New...