Ian Gillespie asks, "What next? Fluoride killing polar bears?" According to The Free Press, the answer may be young children.

Aiming his well-known wit at the anti-fluoridation folk, Gillespie misses mark.

A recent opinion piece by The London Free Press journalist  Ian Gillespie has further muddied the already murky fluoridated waters.

I was very disappointed by his ad hominem attacks on those with whom he disagrees. Instead of using facts to disprove the anti-fluoride position, Gillespie attacked those holding those beliefs. He painted them as crazy conspiracy believers. And in cases where his opponents based their arguments on expert opinions, Gillespie ridicules those experts as well.

Ian mocks London city councillor Denise Brown for suggesting to The Free Press, "If you do any research on the Internet, you’ll find scientists believe there are health risks.”

Click to enlarge.

Ian's witty retort: "And if you do more Internet 'research,' you’ll also discover 'experts' who argue that aliens hijacked the Voyager 2 spacecraft, Paul McCartney died in a 1966 car crash, Elvis Presley is alive and the Apollo moon landing was a hoax."

And if you, Ian Gillespie, do more research you will find the following published by Sun Media, written by Canoe health expert and columnist Dr. Gifford-Jones, and found on The London Free Press Internet site:

"It's shocking that 25% of North Americans over age 43, and 42% of those over 65 years of age, have no teeth!

"(The doctor featured in the article carried by The Free Press) Dr. Judd also believes that the fluoridation of water and the use of fluoride toothpaste is a useless, dangerous biological poison. He says calcium fluoride seeps into enamel, making it weak and brittle, destroying 83 enzymes along with adenosine diphosphatase.

"I couldn't agree more. (Dr. Gifford-Jones writes.) Look at the warning on fluoride toothpaste. Parents are told to watch children under six years of age while they brush their teeth. To be safe, only a tiny amount of toothpaste is used, and none should be swallowed. That should tell you something! In 1974, a three-year old child had fluoride gel placed on his teeth. The hygienist handed him a glass of water but rather than rising out his mouth, he drank it. A few hours later, he was dead.

"If fluoride toothpaste is the answer to dental decay, why is it that 98% of Europe is fluoride-free? Sweden, Germany, Norway, Holland, Denmark and France stopped using fluoridation 29 years ago. These are not backward, depressed nations.

"The sole argument for fluoridation is that it reduces tooth decay. But several studies involving as many as 480,000 children found no beneficial evidence between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.

"Dr. Hardy Limeback, Professor of Dentistry at the University of Toronto, says children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste or drink fluoridated water, and mothers should never use Toronto tap water to prepare baby formula."

I want to go on record as saying I am not frightened by the amount of fluoride being put into London's water. I believe dangerous concentrations of fluoride are only found in drinking waters contaminated with unregulated, naturally occurring fluorides. London is very conservative when it comes to the amount of fluoride added to our drinking water.

But many people are concerned. As long as papers, such as The London Free Press, are telling them a young child died from a fluoride treatment, some folk will use bottled water rather than tap and try their best to stay clear of all fluoride -- even that found in toothpaste and mouthwash.

At one time, it was believed that fluoride only worked topically. It was said that once ingested, as in drinking water, its ability to fight dental caries was curtailed. That belief is now in question.  But,when I worked at The Free Press the only-works-topically mantra was still being repeated. I chatted with a professor at the Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry at Western University who confided that putting fluoride in water was inefficient as it only works topically. But he would not go on record with such a view. The whole issue was simply too emotionally charged.

My point? The anger, distrust, public ridicule surrounding this issue all work to prevent discussion. Journalists are a big part of this problem. And that is sad. Journalists should be advocates of reason and independent thinking. Instead, all too often journalists are herd animals.

I expect more from my daily paper and I certainly expected more from Ian Gillespie. The Free Press is a paper sadly in need of some thoughtful writing and solid editing. This column of Gillespie's should have been spiked. Wait. The spikes left with the editors.
_______________________________________________________________

As I said, I am not concerned about the amount of fluoride found in London Ontario tap water. Just last month the EPA in the United States lowered the maximum recommended concentration of fluoride for drinking water. London was ahead of the EPA. Our fluoride level is inline with the new proposed U.S. guidelines.

But, and it is a big but, if you are already frightened by fluoride in your water, the recent move by the EPA does nothing to allay your fears. Learning that after decades of use the correct amount of fluoride to be added to drinking water without causing any health problems is still being adjusted is downright worrisome. These people need their fears addressed in an adult manner. Condescension is not called for nor is it productive.

Gillespie quotes UWO professor Tim Blackmore, who teaches media and information studies:

“Ignorance is a lot easier and a lot more convincing than knowledge. Knowledge takes time, it takes thinking and it takes figuring. Ignorance doesn’t take any of those things. It just takes belief.”

Ian, I think the professor may have been talking about you.

Good news, bad news

Some stuff is all good; No taint from bad news at all.

Today I had my annual eye examination. I got some good news and some bad news. The good news was that my exam only cost $35. OHIP picked up the balance of my tab. The bad news is why OHIP stepped up to the plate; my right eye has a serious cataract problems and this made my eye examination eligible for government health care coverage.

Earlier in the day I had another good news bad news bit of news. The good news was that I am getting a full refund for the pain pills I took for my strained back. The bad news was that the reason I am getting my money back is that the pills have been recalled. They might be contaminated with ingredients from other pills.

Tomorrow I go to the hospital to have some blood taken for DNA testing related to all my heart problems. I guess the good news here is that the doctors care enough to do the testing. The bad news is that the tests have to be done at all.

Oh well, Fiona was here when I got home from the optometrist. She was sleeping in her car seat with Yummy Bear sleeping upside down beside her. Yummy may well be one dizzy little bear when the two wake up.

The nice thing about Fiona news is it is always all good. There is no down side to Fiona.

Reluctantly I say: "Take the fluoride out of our water."

Drinking water with fluoride doesn't scare me. I don't get concerned when my young granddaughters drink a glass of London Ontario tap water containing fluoride. Yet, if it came to a vote, I'd vote against putting fluoride in our tap water.

Why would I vote against fluoridating tap water? Because a lot of bright people worry about fluoride in their water and their fears are often supported by stories published in local, and even national, newspapers.

It's sad but the media scares the public and then turns around and attacks those folk it left frightened. Even more common, is the weak support for fluoridation found in the media. Taken together, fear-generating stories plus weak positive stories, it is no wonder there is a big block of readers who do not support fluoridation.

According to an article in The Globe and Mail:

"Scientists now believe that the main protective action from fluoride does not come from ingesting the chemical, with the teeth absorbing it from inside the body, but from direct absorption through topical application to teeth.

This means swallowing water is a far less effective way to fight cavities than brushing with fluoridated toothpaste. That may explain the steep decline in cavity rates observed in industrialized countries since the 1970s, irrespective of whether they fluoridate water. Almost all of Europe does not, and yet has seen a sharp reduction in dental caries."

People read stories like the above and then other journalists react with horror when encountering those who fail to see the pressing need for fluoridation. Hey, they may have read the Globe article.

Until newspapers tell a clear, lucid, fact-based story in support of fluoridation, I cannot feel good about putting fluoride in tap water. No one should be frightened of their tap water. Let's get the truth out, without insulting those who believe the confusing stories found in the media. For another look at this problem, read my response to Ian Gillespie's rant "What next? Fluoride killing polar bears?"

A new take

Shot in 1999 with an Olympus clamshell.

Coming up with a new take on the Eiffel Tower in Paris is bit of a feat. But Straight Dope pulls it off.

Cheers
Rockinon

LFP, Sun Media, Canoe, QMI: All scooped!

In the end, Kinsella got it wrong.

The headline read: "Beware the Culture of Exaggeration." It was a warning from Warren Kinsella of Quebecor Media and I read it on the Comment page of The London Free Press.

At first, I agreed with what Kinsella was saying. He mocked the media overreaction to the recent snow storms and to over-blown winter storm stories in general. "It's February! We live in Canada, people! It snows here," Kinsella wrote.

Somehow he segued from this into a discussion of today's media publishing virtually anything out of fear of being scooped. If it's inaccurate or exaggerated, no matter. The important thing is not to get scooped.

Kinsella called this the 'Culture of Exaggeration.' As an example, the QMI Agency writer mentioned the "widespread claims Fox News owned or controlled the forthcoming Sun News Network." Kinsella pointed to the "Stop Fox News North" petition signed by tens of thousands.

Whoa! I believe Kinsella may just have slipped over the line into the Culture of Exaggeration himself. Oops!

I've read about the Stop Fox News North movement and I have even gotten some mail asking me to join, but it was always clear that attack was against the soon to launch Sun TV News channel. Referring to the Sun TV News channel as Fox News North was a bit of a joke; It was a way to tar Sun TV with the same right-wing brush as is used on the U.S. Fox News channel.

In Kinsella's defence, he was not alone in not getting the joke. Apparently Margaret Atwood didn't see the humour either. "Of course Fox and Co. can set up a channel or whatever they want to do, if it's legal etc.," she told The Globe and Mail in an email. To underscore her point the Globe told us that the literary icon had signed an online petition aimed at keeping a "Fox News North" channel off the air in Canada.

Both Kinsella and Atwood should read the Wikipedia entry on the Sun TV News channel. Atwood especially should read the piece as she got a lot of 'ink' in the Wiki report.

I thought Kinsella would have been on safer ground if he had talked about the alleged luncheon meeting held in New York and attended by Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and by Chairman and CEO of News Corporation Rupert Murdoch, and by the creator of the Fox Broadcasting Company and the President of Fox News Roger Ailes and by Kory Teneycke, a Harper aide who led the Pierre Karl Peladeau move to launch Sun TV News, the Fox News-style network, in Canada.

I read about the meeting on some Internet blogs and pooh-pooh the story. If true, this would be an amazing story. I searched The London Free Press and drew a blank. It appeared nothing about such a meeting had been reported by The Free Press.

Until I read Kinsella's column today, I hadn't given the Harper-Murdoch-Ailes-Teneycke meeting story a moment's thought. It never happened, right? Wrong! To write this blog, I had to do some research and I discovered that the story is true! The story was broke by Canadian Press investigative reporter Bruce Cheadle.

The London Free Press was scooped! Sun Media seems to have been scooped! Canoe didn't apparently carry the story. Scooped again! But the Calgary Beacon didn't get scooped. Read its story: Harper's Meeting with Rupert Murdoch.

I guess this disproves Kinsella's argument that the important thing today is not getting scooped. But all this does leave me wondering, just what is important to the papers under the Sun Media/Quebecor umbrella? And maybe, "Fox News North" is not a joke.

Addendum:

After writing this post, I got up the next morning and wondered if I googled "Fox News North" and "The London Free Press" if I would discover that the once fine little paper was being unjustly maligned. I had simply used the paper's own search field earlier.

I wasn't being unfair. The meeting of Harper and Murdock, et al., appears not to have been reported and the phrase Fox News North apparently only appears in stories and columns defending the right-wing news organ from criticism.

I did find this little post (Propaganda, Inc.: The Dawn of ""Fox News North") on the blog This Way to Progress by a former intern with the Kingston Whig Standard. And I found lots more online addressing the issue.

Stay alert: keep your baby safe and healthy

I worry about Miss Baby. Oh, I don't mean I lose sleep with concern. I believe the little girl is quite the healthy child. She eats well — hey, any 16-month-old who enjoys chopped black olives on pizza has a healthy appetite. She is never lethargic but when her activity spring unwinds she is not all that difficult to put to sleep. In fact, when tired she will tap my knee and immediately rest her head on my shoulder when picked up and cuddled; She clearly indicates when she wants to go to sleep to take a needed nap.

So, why do I say I worry about the child? Well, she is just so small. She seems so delicate. And sometimes she takes falls that leave me simply aghast. She's pretty good on her feet, and she doesn't have far to tumble, but she does take a tumble now and then. All kids do.

We took down the glass table that sat for years in our living room. The almost invisible top had hard edges that could inflict real damage if a child were to strike their head. The table now sits, disassembled, in our basement.

I know about shaken-baby syndrome and I worry if a child can be seriously injured by a shaking without making actual contact with a hard surface, could a child be injured falling hard and striking their head while simply learning to walk. How much force does it take for a small child to suffer a minor concession? (In the early days of Miss Baby's walking adventures I never let her walk through our tiled foyer. That floor was just too hard.)

What spurred me to post this was a story in the New York Times magazine, Shaken-baby Syndrome Faces New Questions in Court. One thing became very clear to me while reading that piece: One must monitor a child constantly. Watch for anything that seems out-of-the-ordinary. Babies and toddlers can`t tell you when something is wrong; You, the caregiver, must be alert.

Put baby locks on kitchen cabinets.

And in doing a little research for this piece I stumbled upon this on child safety. This piece is a must read. The corollary I took away from the child safety article was that one should not just believe that a baby product is safe because it is on the market. Stay alert. Watch for poorly designed hinges, sharp edged molded plastic products, and the like.

Personally, I believe even socks can present a danger to toddlers just learning to walk. Socks must have sticky bits on the soles. When wearing slippery cotton socks, or footed toddler sleepers, a young child can have their feet simply slip out from underneath them without warning. The child may not have time to raise their hands and protect themselves as they fall.

Am I overly-protective? Gosh, I hope so. (Please check out the link: child safety.)

Biz Monday still looking tired

Biz Monday is no longer a tabloid-sized insert.

For years Business Monday, or Biz Monday as it was later rechristened, was a loser. It usually featured something of interest but all-too-often the stories were unfinished, incomplete. Biz Monday was a frustrating read.

Well, the tabloid version of the little insert is finally gone. Good riddance. The London Free Press new editor-in-chief Joe Ruscitti wrote about the tabloid's demise. He admitted Biz Monday was looking a little tired.

The broadsheet-sized Biz Monday is now a reality. Features, columnists and reporters have migrated from the tabloid to the broadsheet. Unfortunately, the tired feeling has also made the transition.

Ruscitti promised the weekly centerpiece [sic] will be a full-page profile. The first "and you are?" was full-page but that was about all that was full about it.

David Taylor, the chief executive and founder of Pacific & Western Bank of Canada, was featured in an amazingly incomplete profile. Taylor is a really interesting man and this comes through in the newspaper's feature but great chunks of the rich, complex Taylor story are left untouched.

Taylor is well-known and, from everything that I know of him, well-respected. In fact, Joe Ruscitti and David Taylor have something in common. Ruscitti is on the board of directors of the London Community Foundation, while Taylor is on the foundation's investment committee.

In fact, the Taylor name is so well thought of in some circles that one investor I know invested in Discovery Air after learning that this aviation start-up was a creation of Taylor's. On the strength of the Taylor name this investor bought a few thousand shares. And over the course of a few months lost a few thousand dollars.

Now let me make this very clear. I like David Taylor. Although I don't know him personally, I have met the man and I know some folk fairly well who are quite close to Taylor. I have never heard anything bad about the man. Nothing.

The value of DA.A stock is starting to recover.

But sometimes being good is not good enough. Despite Taylor's extensive background in aviation and finance and his ties to Canada's north, Discovery Air has had a very rough flight. Check out the attached graph charting the history of its rapidly descending stock price.

The story of Discovery Air was featured in Up Here Business, The Magazine of Canada's Enterprising North, and the story, Things Fall Apart by Jack Danylchuk, is worth a read. This is the important business story missing from The London Free Press feature.

Despite its penny stock status DA.A is profitable.

As I believe I have made clear, I am an admirer of David Taylor. When stock in the high-flying Discovery Air crashed in value, I became interested. Taylor is one smart fellow and after some research I found nothing to justify the incredibly low stock price. When Discovery Air (DA.A) was trading around 16 cents I thought it was time to buy. (Unlike some of my other smaller investments, Polaris Minerals for instance, Discovery Air is a profitable company. Nice.) I even told a retired friend to buy into the little Canadian airline. He didn't; I did.

My DA.A shares up 137.17%.

Yes, I know that Taylor was squeezed out and is no longer at the helm of the company he created. But you wouldn't know any of this from The London Free Press article. The entire Discovery Air story is missing from the Biz Monday profile. A business which once reportedly consumed almost as much of Taylor's time as the Pacific & Western Bank didn't even rate a footnote in The Free Press article.

And how did I do with my purchase of Discovery Air? In the interest of full disclosure I sold half my holdings when the price doubled and completely recouped my initial investment. I still hold some shares and at the moment they are up 137.17 percent. I'm happy. This investment is now all pure profit.

I wonder how many shares of DA.A The Free Press writer owns? My bet is none. When I worked at the paper I learned that one of the business reporters didn't follow the stock market and had no opinion on anything related to stocks. This reporter confessed to letting his wife manage their investment portfolio. Maybe that lady should have edited the David Taylor's profile. She might have noticed the missing airline.
_______________________________________________________________________

Some observations about the Biz Monday article on David Taylor and the crying need for thoughtful, intelligent editing.

When I see assumptions stated as facts in newspaper articles I find myself opening a new page and googling the claim. (Yes, I read most of my news online. If The Free Press stopped printing tomorrow, I wouldn't miss the paper edition.)

The article tells us, "Unlike most baby boomers, Taylor is quick to embrace new technology and apply it to his bank and personal interests." Hmmm. I seem to be able to come up with quite a list of tech-savvy boomers: Richard Branson, Steve Wozniak, Eric Schmidt, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates. Maybe its just me, but I know a lot of tech-savvy boomers. I read that by the end of 2009 nearly 47% of baby boomers were actively maintaining a profile on Facebook. When I think of my Facebook contacts, this sounds quite plausible.

When you think of new technology do you think iPad? You should. According to Gizmodo and others, "The iPad is for old people."

I don't know about you, but when I think about a man as bold and creative as David Taylor I am not at all surprised to learn that he "is a pilot who designed his own plane, a mechanic who owns seven motorcycles, a techno-geek who built his own computer and a biology graduate who majored in fisheries." When the paper tells me that this is "not exactly the skill sets you'd expect", I beg to differ.

Taylor has an outstanding resume. Let's take a look at another CEO's background, say Paul Tellier, a man who has been president and CEO of both Bombardier Inc. and Canadian National Railway Co. In a Canadian Business Online article Tellier reveals:

"I couldn't stand high school — it had too many rules, some not logical. After I failed a year, my dad put me in boarding school. I couldn't stand it either, so I quit and stayed on after Christmas break as a ski patrol at Tremblant. The pay wasn't too bad, something like $5 or $6 a day, plus room and board. But my father thought I was in school. When he found out I wasn't, we had a conversation."

Compare David Taylor's skill set to other successful CEOs and Taylor's background seems perfect. If he starts another business, I'd consider investing. (And I'd keep an eye on Paul Tellier, too.)