The conspiracy scene manipulates people's beliefs and preoccupations more than I think people generally realise.

You've...saved that onto your computer?!? WUB, i've thought for a while you're an...interesting character, but that's really quite freaky. Furthermore, I really don't see what your point is.

dogsmilk wrote: I certainly didn't save it on my computer, the only reason that I know why you got banned is because I received a PM from someone who shall remain nameless, in which he sent the image to me, and informed me that, in his words, you had "gone crazy" the previous evening, with a mixture of stalking, derailing and abusive posts towards me that eventually lead to you being banned by the mods. I didn't know this as I wasn't online at the time. This PM was sent to me on 5th May, 2012, and remains in my PM box as I rarely post on the DIF any more. I think it would be unfair to reproduce the PM without permission.

I am merely giving you a friendly warning to remain calm and not resort to such conduct again.

As for everything else you said, the empirical evidence is in my previous post. And I prefer to decline requests for autographs, but they do come up occasionally.

Oi!!!!! Yous two!!!!!!!

WUB, I'm not banned from the DIF nor have I ever 'gone crazy' on there. I've been mightily rude to some people, and I've certainly derailed threads, but I've restricted that virtually exclusively to camp Nazi - so it would be interesting to know who that pm was from.

It's not really been an issue for me yet, although parliament have passed an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill that means councils may be forced to impose fluoridation on people based on the views of the NHS Directors' opinions, whether they agree with it or not. This is so wrong on so many levels. Firstly, it completely goes against informed consent, secondly, it's a bloody stupid, inefficient and disproportionate way of administering medical care, thirdly, it is known and completely accepted, even by advocates of fluoride with regards to dental health, that the quantity is vitally important, as, for example, it is known beyond all doubt that fluoride causes dental fluorosis (hence the fact it's called 'fluorosis'!), fourthly, if it does any good whatsoever even in acceptable dosages it has to be applied topically, not consumed, fifthly, putting fluoride in the water supply doesn't guarantee that people will consume it, or regularly consume it, as many people don't even drink water, and finally, there is absolutely no evidence that it either (a) improves dental health, or (b) that any of the many countries in the world in which fluoride isn't added to the water supply have worse dental health.

There is absolutely tonnes of empirical evidence, though, that suggests water fluoridation has also sorts of negative effects on health. Still, I think it's a great idea.

dubmeup wrote:
Yeah sorry. Me and WUB have our history but we should do the clean slate thing.

WUB - hug?

Let's talk about what a nice man Noam Chomsky is. We can do that, right?

and also much admire his endless supply of cable knit jumpers.

Man I love them cable knits

dogsmilk wrote: I'm certainly not going to give that information, it would hardly be fair, especially as you have conceded that you've been "mightily rude" to others. It was sent on 5th May, 2012, so people can make their own mind up as to whether that was "months ago".

I am merely reminding you to remain courteous as per the rules that you signed up to, which was after all the whole reason for beginning this forum. I made one pretty short response to one thing you'd said, asking you a few questions, and you instantly started having a go at me, without answering any of the questions, which were pretty courteous and straightforward. This seems completely unnecessary to me. I would have thought that despite what had occurred previously, it would be possible for possible for us to retain some form of basic civility. Well, it's possible for me, I can assure you.

I am not interested in some ding-dong, back and forth battle, you are, of course, welcome to your views on water fluoridation,

Everything I wished to say on the subject, and the empirical evidence is here:

The systematic review was commissioned by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to evaluate the scientific literature relating to the health effects of fluoride and fluoridation. The systematic review's research questions relate to the caries-reducing benefits and associated potential health risks of providing fluoride systemically (via addition to water, milk and salt) and the use of topical fluoride agents, such as toothpaste, gel, varnish and mouthrinse. Although the review summarises the recent evidence, it does not constitute health policy or clinical practice recommendations.

Fluoridation of drinking water remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the caries prevention effects of fluoride. It is recommended (see also www.nhmrc.gov.au/news/media/rel07/_files/fluoride_flyer.pdf) that water be fluoridated in the target range of 0.6-1.1 mg/l, depending on the climate, to balance reduction of dental caries and occurrence of dental fluorosis.n particular with reference to care in hospital for those following stroke.

It's not really been an issue for me yet, although parliament have passed an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill that means councils may be forced to impose fluoridation on people based on the views of the NHS Directors' opinions, whether they agree with it or not. This is so wrong on so many levels. Firstly, it completely goes against informed consent, secondly, it's a bloody stupid, inefficient and disproportionate way of administering medical care, thirdly, it is known and completely accepted, even by advocates of fluoride with regards to dental health, that the quantity is vitally important, as, for example, it is known beyond all doubt that fluoride causes dental fluorosis (hence the fact it's called 'fluorosis'!), fourthly, if it does any good whatsoever even in acceptable dosages it has to be applied topically, not consumed, fifthly, putting fluoride in the water supply doesn't guarantee that people will consume it, or regularly consume it, as many people don't even drink water, and finally, there is absolutely no evidence that it either (a) improves dental health, or (b) that any of the many countries in the world in which fluoride isn't added to the water supply have worse dental health.

There is absolutely tonnes of empirical evidence, though, that suggests water fluoridation has also sorts of negative effects on health. Still, I think it's a great ideaIf you don't have anything further to say on the subject, that's fine, perhaps it would be more civil to say "you're welcome to your opinion, I have a different one" than needlessly having a go at me for the crime of asking you a question.

wake_up_bomb wrote: Man I love them cable knits

I could knit those jumpers if I was absolutely forced too... just saying

dogsmilk wrote: Sorry, I didn't see this. I'm not tactile, but I will offer you a manly handshake. And yes, I can agree with you on Chomsky, and also much admire his endless supply of cable knit jumpers.

But please don't start talking about cricket.
I fucking hate cricket.

So there should be longitudinal studies demonstrating the adverse affects on populations over time...right?

Well I'll return your manly handshake.
But please don't start talking about cricket.
I fucking hate cricket.

That saying "It's just not Cricket"...to that I say thank fuck

for­mer Chief Den­tal Offi­cer of Auck­land, John Colquhon, after one time being a huge advo­cate of this, com­pletely changed his mind and started cam­paign­ing against it?:

www​.noflu​o​ride​.com/​c​h​a​n​g​e​d​_​m​y​_​m​i​n​d​.​c​f​m

Which looks like lead­ing to the end of the prac­tice in New Zealand:

www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news…end-for-fluoridation

After 90 minutes the decision was passed by voice vote with no voice against, which surprised almost everyone, including Mr Biesiek.

Like other councillors, he felt he could not support the continued fluoridation of water as he had doubts that the benefits to teeth outweighed potential health risks.

Mr Duynhoven, who admitted to a mouth full of amalgam fillings, had no doubt at all and said his councillors had got it wrong.

"In my view the right decision wasn't made.

"I believe that the overwhelming good was in the fluoride case and I believe the dentists were in the best position to actually see that," he said.

Water fluoridation will cease when the current supply of fluoride runs out in the next six weeks or so.

Council spokesman Brent Manning said the fluoride could not be returned to the supplier and letting it run out was the cheapest way of disposing of the chemical.

More than 400 submissions were made on the issue and 45 people spoke at last month's tribunal.

An overwhelming majority were against the continuation of the practice, though a Taranaki District Health Board submission called for fluoridation to remain and be started in all towns with 1000 people or more.

In June, the Ruapehu-Taumarunui District Council stopped fluoridation after 30 years and next month the Hutt City Council is understood to be considering the future of the practice in their Lower Hutt patch.

Water is fluoridated in both Stratford and Hawera.

Dentist rues council vote

Democracy's stupidity has been exposed by the New Plymouth District Council's decision to stop fluoridating its water, one of the city's most respected dentists says.

Taranaki DHB dental clinical leader David Antunovic said the decision to stop fluoridating went against the Australasian trend to treat water supplies and would result in high levels of tooth decay within two to three years.

"Sometimes democracy doesn't deliver what is expected and I think that sometimes democracy is acknowledged stupidity.

"That is part of the democratic process but it's failed and it's failed the people of Taranaki," Dr Antunovic said.

The cessation of water fluoridation would not impact upon the New Plymouth population evenly, with the young, poor and Maori most severely affected, he said.

"This decision means that we will soon be in a very difficult position of trying to cope with an increase in dental health needs.

"This can be only be addressed by reprioritising resources into the dental service from other health services or by simply accepting an increase in unmet oral health needs.

" Neither option is palatable for our patients," Dr Antunovic said.

Ministry of Health chief dental officer Dr Robyn Haisman-Welsh said council plans to replace its fluoridation programme with a education programme on dental hygiene would cost much more than the $18,000 they currently spent on fluoridating their water. "Conservative estimates are that it costs $4.20 to prevent each case of tooth decay through water fluoridation but it costs $117 to treat each case of decay."

"The cost to the District Health Board and individuals will far exceed $18,000 and DHBs are already investing significantly in improving child oral health, including oral health education," she said.

But their arguments have been heard before by Danielle Diamond, of Fluoride Free Taranaki.

Ms Diamond was one of the key leaders in the movement against fluoride in New Plymouth.

"I would like to ask what evidence their fears are based on, because it seems no one in this country has done a proper study to determine the true effectiveness of fluoridation.

"There are so many variables to consider," Ms Diamond said.

In contrast to Mr Antunovic she believed an education programme on dental hygiene could be effective in preventing tooth decay.

"I think if people are informed they can have an impact and it's a better way to spend out time and money," she said.

"It's going to the source of the issue and building better community rather than putting another chemical into our lives."

An overwhelming majority of the more than 400 submissions received by council on the fluoridation issue were against the practice.

So basically, the health people were against the decision.