Fluoride-Related Bone Problems, Part Two |
Why does the UK Department of Health refuse to carry out research into Dr Mansfield’s claims?
BFS suggested answer
Firstly, it would be irresponsible and unethical to spend public money on a research programme at the whim of one person. The Department of Health continuously monitor all relevant scientific developments relating to fluoridation, and to date there is no evidence at all to support Dr Mansfield’s claims.
Secondly, Dr Mansfield’s theory is based on the false premise that the fluoride added to the water is not the same as that which occurs naturally. Fluoride ions in solution in water are identical whether they occur naturally in the water or are added.
BFS suggested answer refuted
Based on data from the National Academy of Sciences, current levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water may cause arthritis in a substantial portion of the population long before they reach old age.
Robert J. Carton, PhD, former EPA scientist
The BFS is right to say that the government should not spend taxpayers’ money on an expensive research programme at ‘the whim of one person’. But that is not the case here. Dr Mansfield is not a lone voice, as the BFS question implies; he represents a large body of scientific opinion. In calling for some proof that fluoride is beneficial and does no harm, he is voicing the concerns of many people not only in Britain but around the world.
The rest of the BFS’s suggested answer is quite erroneous. The Department of Health clearly does not continuously monitor all relevant scientific developments relating to fluoridation – if it did, it would not be advocating the addition of fluoride to tap water. As to the assertion that ‘to date there is no evidence at all to support Dr Mansfield’s claims’, it must be abundantly obvious that there is a great deal of support for his claims. The reason the Department of Health has no evidence is that it is not looking for it.
And the BFS’s other assertion that ‘Dr Mansfield’s theory is based on the false premise that the fluoride added to the water is not the same as that which occurs naturally’, demonstrates either naivety or duplicity – or perhaps it merely confirms the suggested answer in Chapter 6 that its members are not ‘experts’ in this field and are not competent to deal with this subject. If this really is their interpretation of the science behind fluoridation, one can only agree with that self-appraisal.