"Truth Decay"

[nfotxn]

It's funny being a third party to a nation's politics. Take the down right furor being expressed over fluoridation of the drinking water in Britain. There are people getting really upset about the prospect and polticizing themselves into silly oppositions. They regard having fluoridated water as being "medicated without consent". Even though they already have chlorine in their water apparently fluoride is some sort of psycho-active drug being administered by the state to control our children! That's what you'd assume by the reactions.

The amount of dis-information found on the internet about Fluoridation is... typical. From "Fluorination Based on Science"

Recently (August 1997), the Institute of Medicine reported on evidence of fluoride's ability to stimulate new bone formation. They have recommended that the adequate daily allowance for fluoride be set at 3.1 mg for females and 3.2 mg for males for adults ages 19 years and older. Fluoridated water will, on average, help provide one-third of the new recommended daily dietary intake level of this age group.

By opposing water fluoridation with an argumentative style replete with subtle flaws and half-truths, the Safe Water Foundation will undermine the best efforts of medicine to guide us to good health.

A successful and often repeated tactic of the Safe Water Foundation is to publish a litany of claims or "proofs" against the safety and benefit of water fluoridation, while impugning the motivation of individuals and organizations that support it.

Fluoridation supporters are then forced into a defense posture where it is impossible to adequately redress all of the allegations in the time or space allowed. This can create the appearance of controversy, where none exists, and lend credibility to their pronouncements no matter how far they stray from reality.

Fluoridation of public water supplies is one of the most studied public health measures in history. Its benefits are so well documented and generally accepted as to not reuire any disclosure of proof here. In our 50 years of experience with fluoridation of public water supplies, no respected scientific editor, scholar, or author has concluded that it is unsafe.

It's really obvious to me why there are notoriously Brittish Teeth here.

1. The unit price of tooth paste is about 2.3x more than in Canada for the same Colgate product.
2. Conservative nannies oppose fluoridation of the water despite overwhelming evidence of it's benefits.
3. Kids eat so many "sweets" here it's obscene.
4. Toothbrushes suck. They're obviously designed for people with advanced gingivitis. I can't brush my teeth for shit with the one I bought.
5. Mouth wash is widely regarded as a desireable and adequate alternative to brushing.
6. Dental floss is an obscure and torturous medical contraption not worth bothering with.

What's most alarming is that public health is generally on par with Canada here in a lot of ways. Perhaps proof that socialized medicine does not lead to better public health without a progressive mindset?

Just another little thing that makes me appreciate being a Canadian.

Comments

[ranger1.livejournal.com]

Do not mock my tinfoil hat.

[shawnsyms.livejournal.com]

I love your title for this entry.

[notofthisworld.livejournal.com]

I second that. Could I ask what that's from? (I notice it's put in quotation marks, so I assume it's a quotation.)

If that's not yet the title of a song, it should be. Bad teeth as a metaphor for bad goverment. Body parts rotting away and falling out. Oh yeah!

[danlmarmot.livejournal.com]

It's not just conservative old Britain that's worried about the poisoning of precious bodily fluids.

Santa Cruz, California--one of the most left-leaning and self-proclaimed progressive cities in the US--banned floridation in 1999.

It all has to do with how people trust their government. The Brits lost trust in their government over health issues with mad cow disease. Americans lost trust in their government during Vietnam and Watergate.

Canada, well... I don't know how Canadians see their national government, but I'd suspect they see Ottawa as irrelevant to inept on most matters; it's at the provincial and certainly the local community level where things really matter.

[backrubbear.livejournal.com]

It all has to do with how people trust their government.

That, sir, is probably the best synopsis of my opinion on socialized medicine. Thank you.

[backrubbear.livejournal.com]

I tend to get a lot of flack for my opinions on socialized medicine. Random posts like this remind me that my opinions aren't completely unjustified. :-)

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Are you favour or against?

[backrubbear.livejournal.com]

I don't have the original discussion around, but it originally took part in lfkbear's journal talking with beardoc.

I'm not so much "in favor" or "against" as "disgusted with how it is likely to play out in various existing systems".

Canada and Australia have relatively well adjusted socialized medicine systems. Canada's system appears (as an outsider) to be starting to run into some of the problems of being so close to a free-market healthcare system that pays it's doctors well - brain drain. Another specific local example is the number of nurses that have given up working in the Canadian system in Windsor and now commute daily into the metro-Detroit area.

You're seeing some of the "ugly" sides of socialized medicine as practiced in the U.K.

A great many people, including me, think that the U.S. could benefit greatly from some sane socialized medicine. However, the U.S. is not a particularly sane country where anything socialized is involved. Those who want to institutionalize socialized stuff often manage to get it setup, but it gets done half-assed. Those who don't want it work to actively sabotage it and then point to the stripped-down hulk as an example of "why socialized stuff doesn't work". Meanwhile, the bureaucrats tasked with running what is there do their best to screw over those trying to use the services.

So, given the current U.S. climate towards such things, I'd much rather not see something attempt to be institutionalized for socialized medicine until we have the proper infrastructure to actually do it right. Otherwise, we simply end up with an institution that does it wrong.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

I make it very clear that I strongly believe that my health is NOT a product to be sold to me in a free market. This is something that I personally feel very strong about so please take no personal offence.

I would say the Canadian system's problems you outline are a result of being in proximity to a free market. How is having a reliable source of well-trained healthcare professionals a fault of the system? That logic is absolutely absurd and so typical of 21st century neo-colonial American free market extremism. Also a drain on talent is very minor in relation to the inability for "customers" to afford their care in the bigger picture of delivering care to suffering people.

[backrubbear.livejournal.com]

so please take no personal offence.

I'm generally hard to offend.


How is having a reliable source of well-trained healthcare professionals a fault of the system?

Did I say that it was? I merely stated that you're running into brain-drain issues. Another favorite example is Chinese programmers who never come back home after they've used government scholarships to go to American Universities.

That logic is absolutely absurd and so typical of 21st century neo-colonial American free market extremism.

Now that I do take minor offense to. Accusing me of something based on something that I never even said.

Also a drain on talent is very minor in relation to the inability for "customers" to afford their care in the bigger picture of delivering care to suffering people.

Perhaps things were poorly worded. To restate:

• Socialized systems only work effectively when in a society that can support them.
• Brain drain is natural when you have highly trained people who don't feel they're properly compensated.

Perhaps I should have put in a HR between the fourth and fifth paragraph. That might have left you less snippy.

Second set of points, which are a tangent:

• The U.S. could benefit from sane socialized medicine, however
• The U.S. does not sanely administer socialized programs. Thus
• trying to institute socialized medicine in the U.S. would likely be a disaster.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I'd just got home from work and was feeling bitchy. I really regretted posting the comment afterwards, if that means anything?

For future reference socialized healthcare is one of the major tenents of The Canadian Identity. That along with the fact that Americans know so little about us but we know so much about them. If you really wanna piss off a Canadian start a debate about socialized healthcare or hockey.

It's true.

[backrubbear.livejournal.com]

I really regretted posting the comment afterwards, if that means anything?

It does. :-)

For future reference socialized healthcare is one of the major tenents of The Canadian Identity.

Given that this is the second time I've had a "violently allergic" reaction (for want of better terminology) to this topic, I've started to figure that out. It's about as bad as mentioning how you doubt that collegiate sports is good for the schools in the U.S.

FWIW, I used to follow Canadian politics a fair amount. I stopped doing so a few years ago when I moved out of range of (I think) CBC 4. I tend to know more about past Canadian history than modern, specifically Michigan territorial days. :-)

[cub4bear.livejournal.com]

Fluoridation of water has absolutely nothing to do with single-payer health care.

[backrubbear.livejournal.com]

This was more a comment on "british teeth" (see the last few sentences of Brodie's post) than on the flouridation issue. :-)

[mathan.livejournal.com]

The funny thing is, dental care in the UK is covered by the NHS. Or, at least it was back in 1995/1996. :)

[earth-walker.livejournal.com]

So at what point is it unacceptable for a government to force medication on a population? And why is this forced medication being done through a route where most of the substance is not ingested but put down the drain? This is a huge waste with few human health benefits, and possible long-term health and environmental risk.

Regardless of how harmless the scientific community thinks floridation is, they only have 50 years of data. That means no HUMAN chronic exposure nor xenotoxicity (effect on offspring, gene mutation, etc.) data. All the safety, allowance and benefit data beyond short term studies are based on animal models, and many of the studies were funded by the chemical industry, i.e. the primary profiting stakeholders.

Not to mention that we still have very little knowledge of how widespread dumping of floridated water will accumulate in the environment.

Remember, there was a point when DDT, benzene and cocaine were considered safe by the scientific/medical communities, and believe me their definitions of 'safety' are not based on that much higher quality data than 50 years ago... it is still quite possible for harmful effects to go below the radar.

But regardless of whether we're going to accept the scientific communities' assertion that this practice is 'safe',

a) people should have a choice whether they want to be medicated or not, and
b) surely a less wasteful method of dispensing it could be found.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Excellent points, thanks for your contribution. I think more than anything I was reacting to the nanny-ism that the opponents of fluoridation were projecting. That it couldn't possibly be beneficial and that The Bad Men Are Trying Only To Hurt My Children.

Long term studies and due scientific process are utterly important. And I hope the effects are continually monitored. As for choice of medication I would suspect that there is also a coalition against the chlorination of water as well. Which without we'd of course be a much less advanced civilization.

It all comes down to a judgement call really. My judgement says that the risk is not that high. Although some nice hard data would be useful. I'm really too lazy too sort through the junk on google so really I'm buying the scientific hubris. Which I am inclined to do.

[earth-walker.livejournal.com]

I get frustrated with the 'what about my children' voices, because they are so overbearing and are just used by stakeholders to ridicule and dismiss any potential legitimate arguments.

As far as chlorination of water goes, I would disagree... there are a number of viable choices for drinking water sterilisation, and chlorination is used mostly becasue of economics and entrenchment. If we had dismissed chlorine as an option right at the beginning, quite possibly there would have been enough demand to make one of the other, safer (environmentally and health-wise) options more economically feasible.

I look at it as similar to the gas-powered automobile... technologically speaking, we've purposefully underdeveloped the alternatives because of complex economic interests. Compare, for example, the advancement of electic or fuel-cell cars over the past 20 years to, say, computing technology.

Think of how far we'd be in terms of transportation technology if we'd decided to phase out gas-powered vehicles in oil crisis of the 70's!

But I'm just rambling on now. Thanks for the op to comment!