You may have seen the article by CBC this week about Windsor deciding to return to including fluoride in their water supply after a five year absence. The article does a much better job of discussing the reasons than I can. I wonder if, with time, Parry Sound will come to the same conclusion.
I would like to offer a second reference that is on a related subject – vaccines. It’s related only by the fact hat there are a number of people convinced that they, and their champions, know more than the medical community as a whole. It’s known as the Dunning-Kruger effect and was discussed in a recent Newsweek article.
It will be difficult for Windsor to rationalize reversing their decision of 2013 to remove fluoride from the municipal water system. It will also be costly. But the decision is being made on the basis of expert opinion and real world experience. They have effectively conducted their own clinical trial. It’s a shame that Parry Sound needs to go down the same path. There are false prophets and there are folks who believe they ‘know’ more than the accumulated wisdom of experts. It seems we may have both.
No comments
Cliff Beagan said:
January 26, 2019 at 1:24 pm
A multitude of well educated individuals are Pro Flouride and an equal number of learned individuals are against Flouride.
The same can be said for many other ever present controversies in our World today.
Brexit is good Brexit is Bad
We have Global warming, we have Global cooling
We have people who want a splash pad at the Beach…..and Those against
and all have excellent reasons plus reams of information to back up there side of the argument. The list goes on and on ad nauseum.
Nothing added to Windsor Municipal water makes it safe to drink. I lived there for seven years and the only worse tap water I ever encountered was in Guelph.
Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com said:
January 26, 2019 at 1:46 pm
Cliff – you are wrong. While there are two parties on either side of the fluoride argument they are not equal in knowledge or experience or even number. And the data doesn’t equally support both sides of the argument. I enjoy listening to people expound on things that really don’t understand and certainly have not studied in a setting where they are exposed to facts and both sides of an argument. I believe our local ‘fluoride expert’ was given a forum before the dental students at the University of Toronto so that they would hear both sides of the argument. That’s a bit like offering President Trump an audience on any number of subjects on which he proclaims ‘he is an expert’. Sad! Don’t confuse opinion with facts, even if the opinion is spoken from the mouths of intelligent people. There is a difference between being intelligent and being fully informed and expert. I could offer my opinion on the Maple Leafs, and I could probably find arguments, articles, to back up my opinions. But I would only be offering an opinion, not a reasoned piece of insight based on extensive experience and study.
Cliff Beagan said:
January 26, 2019 at 1:26 pm
‘their’ not there in the above
Cliff Beagan said:
January 26, 2019 at 5:26 pm
So what you are saying is (for example) That individuals who promote getting the FLU vaccine are dealing from a position of solid irrefutable facts, while those opposed (including health care workers) to the FLU shot are just offering an opinion
Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com said:
January 26, 2019 at 5:43 pm
Absolutely. Healthcare workers are trained to deliver healthcare as they are educated and licensed and with the options that they are taught to choose from according to a hierarchy. They are not trained to send a person to surgery if they present with a stomach ache. There is a protocol, developed over years of study, and consensus as to the best course of action given the presentation. Would you want a nurse assistant to operate on you for a hip replacement procedure? They are a trained health professional? Would you want an orthopedic surgeon to do brain surgery on you? That person is even more trained and knowledgeable. A health professional is not capable of delivering a truly informed opinion in any other area that they are trained, especially if it is at odds with the consensus of the relevant medical professionals.
Vaccines and fluoride in water systems is something that is studied by public health professionals. Even practicing dentists don’t have that kind of detailed knowledge of the medical and societal impact of these prophylactic treatments and look to the experts to advise them based on the best available literature and study.
We all have a right to an opinion, but that doesn’t give us license to practice it.
Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com said:
January 26, 2019 at 7:15 pm
They are operating from the best available knowledge as assessed by individuals who are trained to interpret this type of information. This is as opposed to folks who are trained in a different discipline working with a limited cache of information. Can a radiologist read an X-ray or a CAT scan wrong on occasion? I’m sure they do, the shadows on an X-ray are tricky to properly interpret. But I would rather have a radiologist read my scan than an ophthalmologist, or even a surgeon.
Read again my original post where I noted the Dunning-Kruger effect. People who have no expertise in an area are more likely to not recognize that they have very limited expertise in the area. People who have expertise in the area are often more unlikely to underestimate their expertise. Ask folks how good a driver they are. Poorer than average, average or better than average. In theory one third would be below average, one third average and one third better. That’s simple arithmetic and the way that averages are defined. But you find many people will over assess their ability as a driver. And that is something they have some degree of experience with. Now ask them to assess the appropriateness of a vaccine or fluoridation. They are so far over their heads they don’t even realize it, and then up pops the Dunning-Kruger effect and they offer their personal ‘studied’ opinions.